COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
An utterly shabby proceeding, but then that is the kind of
thing we've come to expect from David Cameron.
Please, when is it appropriate for a judge to pronounce on
someone's “probable” guilt?
Never.
And our day-in, day-out practices support that view.
As I recall, we had only recently the case of the late Lord
Greville Janner being tried as a pedophile, and apparently there was evidence
or he wouldn't have gone to court.
Yet old Janner died, and the case is closed, we have no
judge pronouncing on Janner.
This 'probable" call by what is supposed to be a
responsible official in a decade-old matter which has not gone to court, and
which is riddled with doubts and contradictions is about as convincing as the
idiotic Warren Commission's finding in the death of President Kennedy. The
parallels are striking.
In case you don't know, that finding was that a single loner
with no known motive, one with a record of poor marksmanship, and without a
weapon worthy of the name, killed the president. Chains of evidence around
every significant artifact – shell casings, the rifle, a paper bag, and many
others - have been shown to have been utterly corrupt. And the judgement was
reached with absolutely no normal courtroom rules of evidence. The dead accused
was not even permitted cross-examination of witnesses by a lawyer representing
his interests.
And more witnesses were ignored than used. There was a clear
pattern of selectivity in the use of witnesses then. And important leads, like
the work of Oswald as a paid informant for the FBI, were buried.
Moreover the Commission itself did no investigation. It
relied entirely on an FBI whose head had come to the conclusion of guilt almost
immediately after the crime, a head official by the way who detested Kennedy
and whose agency had a long record of selective investigations and corrupt
practices.
Perhaps the single most important witness was ignored. Jack
Ruby asked Justice Warren to take him to Washington where he could feel free to
talk, but Warren refused, lamely saying he couldn’t do that.
But Oswald was "probably" guilty. And great
secrecy was maintained over many details of the case, and even today the most
important parts of the secrecy remain intact.
As the great Bertrand Russell asked at the time, if as we
are asked to believe, the assassination was the act of one man, where is the
matter of national security?
His question has never been answered, because it cannot be
answered.
Any person who is not biased by a government or political
connection and who has studied the case in detail - as I have - knows we were
not told the truth.
The Warren Commission was a cover-up for an event far more
terrifying and complicated than a supposed "lone nut" shooting a president.
And just so this feeble and irresponsible pronouncement. We
know Litvinenko was working for a British security agency. What was he doing?
We know also he had contact with some very doubtful Russian emerges living in
Britain. What was that about?
Moreover, David Cameron’s government does everything that it
can to discredit Russia because Russia on numerous occasions has embarrassed
him, demonstrating the true nature of some ugly and contrived American acts and
revealing Cameron’s words on subjects like Syria or Ukraine as so much
re-written American propaganda. Or perhaps that should be re-written Rupert
Murdoch propaganda?
