Nobel Peace Prize Winner joins Assange Solidarity Vigil at Ecuadoran embassy London

by Veterans for Peace UK Sun Dec 16, 2012 20:32

I had been planning to go to Ireland for some time and seeing as Hillary Clinton was visiting this week (06 DEC 2012) I decided to head over with my good mate Ciaron O’Reilly. The hypocrisy of Clinton is almost unique, portraying herself as a champion of human rights and democracy whilst supporting every war for the last 22 years. Whether as First Lady, Senator for New York or Secretary of State she has consistently banged the war drum.

ARTICLE CONTINUED......
http://tinyurl.com/ctb6mdw

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Mon Dec 17, 2012 02:00

Julian Assange would want to watch out. Mairead is likely to ask him to surrender. That is after all the reason why she was given a peace prize in the first place, her capitulation to imperialism and her demand that the croppies lie down in the name of peace.

by Response Tue Dec 18, 2012 09:50

She seems to have a stronger anti-imperialist position than her critics of yesteryear with the macho rrrrrrrrrrevolutionary rhetoric a few decades ago who have since buddied up to the U.S. war machine.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Tue Dec 18, 2012 23:05

I have never understood why that if you if you criticise British Imperialism or its "useful fools" that you are automatically a provo or some other type of mad militarist. The idea that you might actually be a socialist seems not to cross people's mind.

by Yup Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:35

Socialists have abandoned Assange and Manning ..... as they abandoned anyone else who took risks and direct action against the Iraq War. Corrigan is willing to visit anti-war prisoners including Assange. The proof is in the praxis not the rhetoric.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 19, 2012 18:32

My question was about why people who criticise people like Corrigan etc are automatically presumed to be provos etc. As for the socialists well they come in all shapes and sizes. I don't feel alluded to. Please don't ask me what I have done on the Assange case, mine was a simple comment on the politics of one person based on the experience in Ireland and not a moralistic claim claim to some moral superiority or even inferiority.

by Justin Morahan Wed Dec 19, 2012 22:57

What I fail to understand is how quickly Gearoid jumps in (cynically) to criticise Mairead for her support of whistleblower Julian Assange.

His (Gearoid's) assessment of her stand for peace is totally off the wall. She is a humane and courageous witness for peace, human rights and justice.

Julian Assange should be happy and proud to have her onside.

by 6 months Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:26

provo? socialist?
Maybe your just a contrary codger who thinks they are being rebeliious?
If your not taking any risks like Julian and Mariead, you are probably just being a contrary codger. No?

Meanwhile back in the real world Julian has been holed up for 6 months now in in the Ecuadoran embassy in London.
Check out this youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WqIH3X_-PU&feature=youtu.be

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Thu Dec 20, 2012 13:47

Oh well, dear me. Justin Morahan describes her as humane etc. Yes well, if I am not mistaken, this is the same JM of Sinn Fein. If so, and I apologise in advance if I have confused you with some else, but that was not the description made of her by the provos when she was busy blaming the provos for all the ills of the world.

As for risks. I don't need to take risks in order to be able to criticise ideological positions. Just like I don't need to have a few kilos of semtex in order to be able to criticise the provos or the so called disidents. But before you raise that moralistic rubbish again, I work on the ground in Colombia with grass roots organistions fighting mining multinationals (hope that qualifies) and have done so for many years. But I am not criticising anyone's lack of bravery but their ideological positions in relation to imperialism and it wasn't even a profound one, just pointing out the she believes in surrender amongst other options.

So moralists, get lost, I have the creditionals, but I also have a brain which is what really gives me the right to voice an opinion.

by Irishman Thu Dec 20, 2012 21:33

Good on you Gearoid. Those miners need support.
That definitely qualifies in my book.

However I hope any such sectarian attempts to associate wikileaks with controversial figures and then smear them by association does not sour the work of Assange and wikileaks in the eyes of Irish anti imperialists. We should be wise to such tactics at this stage.

Wikileaks did us all a service here in showing up imperialism worldwide, no matter manages to crawl on the bus as a publicity seeking "hanger on" afterwards.

Julian has made a few poor choices out of political ignorance: al jazeera, he described as a good news channel (yeah if you like the propaganda views of Qatari princes and their allies in US! ), he chose the guardian ( involving fucking Luke Harding of all people ) / new york times to help leak his stuff. they all stabbed him in the back etc. Maybe he is not really up to speed on the north. He can be forgiven for that I think.

And regarding maguire and surrender etc. I see this "peace process" as a long game. It's far from over yet. Just the tactics have changed. Bide your time. It will happen. Tiocfaidh ar la

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Fri Dec 21, 2012 04:08

I have no problems with Assange at all. I think he is remarkable and yes brave. A bit of en ego, but then who doesn't have a bit of an ego? My comments were directed at certain types who support him.

by truthseeker Fri Dec 21, 2012 08:23

"just pointing out the she believes in surrender amongst other options"

Joining in with the British Imperialist Army in the North is what Maguire and Corrigan did

".Page 6 Richard Deutsch “Mairead Corrigan Betty Williams”

she “explained that she represented a group of Andersonstown women who wanted to have peace and that her petition demanded thst the \provisional IRA halt its military campaign” "

by Justin Morahan Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:39

I was never in Sinn Fein. I opposed the IRA along with all other armies as a pacifist. It would be nice if you got your facts right on both Mairead and me before you publish to the world.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Fri Dec 21, 2012 14:31

Well, I did say put it in doubt if you were that JM, though the Sinn Fein JM, graduate of DCU etc where I first met him. He later rose through the ranks. I accept it is a different person, I apologised in advance and do so again,. That is the problem with sites like this, one is never sure who the other person is. However, one is a case of mistaken identity. The facts on Mairead are public and there is no mistake. She called on the provos to surrender and blamed them and them alone for the conflict, following the death of two children who were run over by a car in which an IRA man was travelling, Danny Lennon, the fact that the brits opened fire on the car killing him instantly and causing the car to swerve, were neither here nor there, her support for British Imperialism was and is solid.

by truthseeker Sat Dec 22, 2012 08:47

Totally correct there!

".Page 6 Richard Deutsch in a book named “Mairead Corrigan Betty Williams”

she “explained that she represented a group of Andersonstown women who wanted to have peace and that her petition demanded thst the Provisional IRA halt its military campaign” "

THAT is why the Peace People were such stinkers. And it is why Republicans througout Ireland hated them so much.

They truly were the agents of British Imperialism.

Note how Maguire is given a political platform inside the anti Israel movement just as the CIA agent in Dublin was also given HIS platform by the same people.

by Solidarity Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:28

Jesus wept

You sit on ya arse and do nothing of consequence as the U.S. empire sets up a military base at Shannon Airport and now leave Manning and Assange hung out to dry or exposing a war that costs millions of lives and created millions of refugees. With most of the perpetrators having refueled in "neutral" Ireland. Republican Schumublican ...what does it mean in the here and now?

Maguire walks the walk, you just keep talking the talk, have another pint and we'll wake you when it's over!

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Sat Dec 22, 2012 14:54

Maguire walks the walk, which walk? The one where she meets the English queen and grovels? When she was busy proclaiming the progressive nature of British Imperialism she was also the darling of the International press and governments including the yanks, or do you think that the US mounted a campaing against her Nobel Prize. Though to be fair, unlike Betty who did a runner and kept the money because she needed it, as she told a documentary team back in the 80s, Maguire didn't do a runner.

This what are you doing shite is exactly that, shite. We have no way of knowing how many pints you had before you plucked up the courage to say something. For that matter we have no idea what you or anyone else has ever done. However, the discussion was about her position on surrendering, not who did what and when. The author Hitchens once wrote a book on the war criminal Kissinger before joining him and turning his back on the what Fanon called the Wretched of the Earth.

by Solidarity Sat Dec 22, 2012 21:20

The walk is one of solidarity with people in jeopardy resisting imperial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Solidarity and jeopardy is something the sectarian Irish left know little about ..... every issue every sign of human suffering is merely a marketing opportunity to them. The war loses is media sex appeal and they find another ambulance to chase that may as act a springboard to the Dail. Meanwhile the U.S. war machine conintues to commute through Ireland. Those who have exposed the war - Manning and Assange - are left hung out to dry.

Solidarity, rather than the contrary begrudgery you display, is what Mariead offered in Afghanistan and at the Ecuadoran embassy over the last couple of weeks. The socialist cult that runs the Stop the War Coalition in England meanwhile are calling for the extradition of Assange.

by truthseeker Sun Dec 23, 2012 08:30

I defend Assange without condition. We talk here about Maguire. maguire and Corrigan in their first leaflet that launched the Peace Movement had not a bad word to say about the British Army in the North, but were calling on the Provos to give up. Point to me where she has changed...

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Sun Dec 23, 2012 15:23

She hasn't changed, which is why no one, JM or otherwise, will answer you. She bides her time, she supports some worthy causes, no doubt but when the chips are down she will call for surrender rather than challenge imperialism. Pacifists tend to do that, the war is the evil and must end, the issues that caused it, are of lesser importance, though in the case of Ireland, they were of no importance to her. For example, a War like that one in Iraq and Afghanistan is just bad and should end, no mention of the Imperialism and giving it a bloody nose, i.e a defeat.

by Justin Morahan Mon Dec 24, 2012 00:39

"truth-seeker": you should try to substantiate your statement that the Peace People were "AGENTS of the British Army. One quote from a book by one Richard Deutch won't do it for you.

You quote: she “explained that she represented a group of Andersonstown women who wanted to have peace and that her petition demanded thst the Provisional IRA halt its military campaign” "

There were many thousands of nationalists including John Hume and the SDLP who "wanted to have peace and wished the PIRA to go away" . Does that make them all "AGENTS of the British army"?

Gearóid: Like "truth seeker", you cannot give credit where credit is due. Mairead shows support for anti-imperialist Julian Assange and US whistleblower Bradley Manning but you jump in not to agree with her anti-imperialist action but to criticise what the Peace People said in their opening statement many decades ago.

Going on a boat to Gaza three times, detained in the USA five times, detained in Scotland (Faslane), detained in Israel three times, shot and gassed in Israel, deported from Israel, outspoken critic of the British government for the unjust incarceration of Marion Price - do these fact not count for anything in your book. I would have expected that you, as a worker for the miners in Colombia against imperialism, would have found her a fellow traveller for justice and human rights rather than a critic of her past as you saw it..

You have totally misjudged pacifists. I hope we do not misjudge you. Btw apology accepted for your mistaking me for someone else/

by truthseeker Mon Dec 24, 2012 08:05

Justin Morahan

I read what you say but you do not deal with substance. the book I quoted cannot be faulted on matter of fact.

"I defend Assange without condition. We talk here about Maguire. Maguire and Corrigan in their first leaflet that launched the Peace Movement had not a bad word to say about the British Army in the North, but were calling on the Provos to give up. Point to me where she has changed..."

There are a number of things in this call which they placed on that first demonstration:

They said not a word about the British Army and its Occupation of the North. That army from the first moment was sheer brute force, armed to the teeth.

the IRA was the IRA little changed...we know that

But Maguire did not hesitate. She opposed the IRA campaign, in words and action.

Direct or indirect, whatever that means, she WAS acting as agent of the Occupation. her fire was directed against the IRA and was silent ont he Occupation, also directed against the Protestant people.

MAGUIRE WAS AT LEAST A TOOL. She was almost definitely, perhaps definitely, acting as an agent of the Catholic Church and the Heirachy.

She made her name on the Peace Movement and has never recanted.

She knows that and since has been seeking a platform. But that platform has been given to her by precisely people like you

Hume and the SDLP...certainly indirect agents of British Imperialism, direct agents of Irish capitalism int he south.

The book is important and has never been challenged. All republicans today would back up its veracity in reporting that first demonstration on page 6

by Justin Morahan Mon Dec 24, 2012 09:05

I think if you are serious about truth seeking you should withdraw that slander

by JoeMc Mon Dec 24, 2012 09:14

she “explained that she represented a group of Andersonstown women who wanted to have peace and that her petition demanded thst the Provisional IRA halt its military campaign” "

I assume that would be the same "mad militarist" provo campaign that Gearoid was referring to on Tuesday.

by truthseeker Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:22

Why defend the IRA against the Peace People. You may have differences with the IRA, many differences, but to call for them to surrender which is how I read the Peace People, is to cross the line

That is what Maguire did

That line is as old as history itself.

From that position NOBODY can ever recover, and especially you cannot recover if you do not acknowledge what you have done.

by Justin Morahan Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:29

Repeating a lie doesn't change it into truth. You should change your pseudonym "truthseeker".

by Indymedia ireland snowman Tue Dec 25, 2012 16:57

What a team , enough to put you off your xmas dinner

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 26, 2012 01:46

I have no idea who Felix Quigley is, so I have no comments on him.

The point about Mairead is this. Yes she has gone off and lots of things, as I said she has supported worthy causes. But here on the ground I have seen NGOs support "worthy causes" and then tell the communities they have no choice but to surrender. I have seen it in relation to mining companies, and also to the attempts to force African Palm on communities (this last one supported indirectly by Trocaire). So forgive me if I posted a warning on where Mairead might end up in relation to Julian Assange.

by truthseeker Wed Dec 26, 2012 08:22

The Brits and the US badly wanted the Provos defeated. So did the Vatican and Catholic Irish heirarchy.

At that point in tragic circumstances arose the peace Movement and Mairead from obscure secretary to Guinness Boss to international fame

Accident? Hardly!

On reflection I do not think that Mairead and the others were actually paid agents. But what is more accurate is that they immediately became TOOLS of these reactionary interests.

mairead is guided by her PACIFISM.

The problem with this is that Pacifism itself is a Lie. Force in capitalist society is on the same level as is Gravity.

it is on the basis of this lie that all of the totally reactionary activity takes place.

I disagree with Gearoid here on this very point. There are no good ideas from Mairead and how could there be because her activity is based on a lie, the lie of pacifism.

by truthseeker Wed Dec 26, 2012 09:41

But the use of force in society still remains. They became fixated on the provisional IRA. But violence (force) is still the basis of society in the north and everywhere. Pacifism is a trap...

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 26, 2012 15:18

I didn't say that she has good points. I said she has supported worthy causes, such as Palestine. I then pointed out that NGOs have done the same in Colombia only to tell communities they must surrender, which is what Mairead is about. The worth of the causes is independent of the people who "support them". By the way, Obama has "supported" worthy causes also, but we all know where he stands.

Yes, pacifism is a lie. I agree. It presumes that only physical violence of the type of guns and bombardments is violence. It is not. The Irish working class were subjected to a violent attack in the last budget, for example. this does not qualify as violence for the pacifists. Only when it becomes necessary to unleash the dogs does it register with them.

by JoeMc Wed Dec 26, 2012 15:49

Gearoid was being hunted by right wing paralilitaries in Colombia ten years ago,and had to go into hiding. I wonder if he would have taken such a negative attitude if pacifists like Maguire and Archbishop Tutu had offered their voices in his support. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall Niall Andrews supporting him back then.

At the moment Mairead Maguire is supporting Assange in his refusal to be extradited. If she ever does change her mind and tells Assange to surrender , he will be able to make up his mind then whether to take her advice or not.

by Gearoid O Loingsigh Wed Dec 26, 2012 16:33

I don't recall Tutu doing anything, but then I wasn't on the ball being in the mountains, he may well have. Niall Andrews, rings a bell, I think even someone from the Kennedy family rang the Irish embassy in relation to the case. Anders Kompass the then UNHCR representative took up the case and I know of one US Senator who took it up with the Colombian government all of which forced the Irish government to intervene as they were very clear at the start that they had no intentions of doing so.

The difference however, is that no grandiose claims are made about these people. All of them are liberals to one degree or another, nobody, not even themselves makes any pretence at anything else. There is nothing wrong with liberals being asked to voice their concerns, not even Mairead etc. The point was a warning about where she would take a campaign if she were in a position to do so, that is all. She favours surrender, that was the point. I have myself asked liberals to sign petitions and even asked and got Ramos Horta to sign a book of condolence for a murdered human rights activist in Colombia, along with Dick Spring, the board of Siptu etc

In my own case nobody blamed or was willing to blame the State, even though Captain Contreras of the 5th Battalion Guanes of the 5th Brigade was deeply involved in it. The Irish State never accepted that and after I got out of the mountains, I was asked by the Irish Ambassador to accept that that was the case. I didn't then and I don't now accept that the Colombian State has nothing to do with the paramilitary violence. It is an instigator of it. The Ambassador Art Agnew was furious with me and in a meeting with a human rights org. kept breaking off into English to lean across the table and tell me I was a fool. I accepted the support I got and I am still grateful for it,but the Maireads of the world, well I just ignored them when it came to describing the situation. I also refused the Ambassador's request that I leave Colombia or in the case of staying that I would limit myself to safe areas such as Bogotá and Cartagena, where I have never been. The Ambassadors ignorance of the reality of the tourist city of Cartagena and the violence in it was breathtaking. I left Colombia when I finished the work I had gone there to do, when I got back the coordinating that hired me (Oidhaco) and of which Trocaire forms a part refused to publish the report and threatened me with legal action if I did. Needless to say I published the report in book form and they failed in their legal attempts to silence me.

So, what I am saying to Assange etc is take your support but don't let Mairead and people like her dictate your strategy cause you will end up surrendering.

by JoeMc Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:03

Text of message issued by Mairead Maguire after visiting Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy:

"On Thursday 13th December, 2012, I visited Julian Assange, Editor-in-chief of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadorian embassy, Knightsbridge, London.

It is six months now since Julian Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy and was given political asylum. He entered the embassy after the British Courts shamefully refused his appeal against extradition to Sweden where he is wanted for questioning accused of sexual molestation (no criminal charges have been made against him).

Julian Assange has said, he is willing to answer questions in the UK relating to accusations against him, or alternatively to go to Sweden provided the Swedish government guarantee he will not be extradited to the US where plans are ready for him to be tried for conspiracy to commit espionage.

The Swedish Government refuse to give such assurance.

Mr. Assange is right to be concerned about the dangers of extradition to USA.

American media has reported that the US Justice Department and the Pentagon have been conducting a criminal investigation into ‘whether wikileaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the groups release of government documents including possible charges under the espionage act’.

Mr. Assange’s only crime is that he embarrassed the USA and powerful governments with Wikileaks release of thousands of US state department cables and of the video footage from an apache helicopter of a 2007 incident in which the US military appears to have deliberately killed civilians, including two reuters employees, revealing USA’s Crimes against humanity.

For this truth telling he has inherited the wrath of the US government, and has been targeted in a most vindictive way – as has American soldier, pt. Bradley Manning, currently undergoing a military Court hearing for allegedly leaking classified documents to wikileaks. Pt. Bradley Manning has been subjected, according to formal UN investigation, to ‘cruel and inhuman’ treatment whilst held in solitary confinement in US prison for nine months. The American government has admitted to the torture of Pt. Bradley Manning, one of their own soldiers.

However, even if the Swedish authorities decide not to charge Julian Assange the USA will probably demand that the British government extradite Assange from Britain to the USA, to face a US Grand Jury indictment. (The US Grand Jury has been sitting for 16 months and it is believed to have reached a verdict to indict Julian Assange and has a sealed indictment ready to unseal at the most beneficial time to the US. The grand Jury is a flawed, unjust legal process, consisting of four Prosecutors but no defence evidence is allowed. There is no judge and a no jury pool is drawn from Alexandria, Virginia, which has the highest percentage of military contractor families in the US.)
Below is the text of a message issued by Mairead Maguire after visiting Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy:

"On meeting with Julian Assange I was struck by his intelligent, bright and compassionate mind, and glad to see that in spite of all the abuse of his human rights and persecution he is in good spirits and good health. In spite of the fact that for six months he has been confined indoors with no possibility of even 5 minutes in the fresh air, a basic right for all political prisoners, as if he tries to go outside he will be immediately arrested by the police outside the embassy, and be extradited to Sweden or USA.

Unlike most political prisoners he has no idea how long his virtual imprisonment in the embassy, will last, 6 more months or 6 years, whilst this diplomatic standoff continues."

This is indeed cruel, inhumane and mental torture, of a man, whose only crime was to tell the truth and bring transparency to the illegal acts of the US Government and its allies around the world. (the cost to police this man of peace is £11,000 per day).

I believe the UK/SWEDISH/USA GOVERNMENS are all complicit in this mental torture of Julian Assange, and I appeal to the Australian government, Human rights defenders, brave media, and people who love freedom and truth to break the ‘silence ‘ and stand up for the rights of Julian Assange to assurance he will get the change to answer all accusations against him in UK or Sweden and the assurance he will not be extradited to USA where he could meet the same ‘cruel and inhuman’ treatment as pt. Bradley Manning.

The least we can do is raise our voices to protect JulianAssange (and Bradley Manning) who made such brave attempts, at the cost of their own freedom, to try to protect all our freedoms and democracy. "

by Zionism=Nazism Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:14

A commenter calling themsleves "truthseeker" wrote

"
mairead is guided by her PACIFISM.

The problem with this is that Pacifism itself is a Lie."

this is clearly a statement in support of the use of force in reaction to racist imperialism/occupation.

Since that is what it plainly is, then one can surmise that the author of that statement would logically reject passive resistance to racism and occupation by a foreign power, irrespective of the reasons put forth by that foreign power in support of any illegal occupation and racism that they may frequently indulge in.

Therefore one can also surmise that according to the author of that statement ALL resistance to any illegal occupier, whether passive or by the use of force, is a completely legitimate reaction to that occupying power, and should be supported by anyone that calls themselves "Anti-Imperialist" and/or "Socialist".