Hugh Kerr, a former vice chair of the Scottish Executive Council of the National Union of Journalists, called the verdict and sentence "a real threat to civil liberties"
Huge thanks to journalist Mohamed Elmaazi for all his work on this report. He filed this from the United Kingdom and has followed the political case against Craig Murray closely.
This is another repulsive act against any assemblance of a free press or speech. Of course they had to refuse him to testify in the trial in Spain for support for Julian. I am totally and completely disgusted and disenfranchised.
Another country trying to destroy another free speech hero in this ongoing and coordinated effort to castrate journalism and bring it under the heel of the global empire led by the US.
By definition the judge who presided over Salmond’s trial cannot objectively determine if the information in Murray’s blog could lead to identification of the witnesses, as she is intimately familiar with all the facts of the case.
Thank you for your work Kevin...We stand with Craig Murray... I have had enough of this corrupt system with zero integrity or honour...
Excellent journalism. Please continue to cover this and related stories with similar attention to detail. If Mr Murray inspires a new generation of independent thinkers, that would be the very best outcome possible. Beware that you will run into unexpected resistance on this path!
So sorry to read this Craig. My thoughts are with you and your family.
Have you noticed female judges rule against men, Its obscene that the women who falsely accused salmond get off for lying and the man exposing their lies goes to jail
Bit like Julian Assange
We are in shock and we will share this information. Lets donate generously for Mr Murray 's appeal.
Travesty of justice
If someone accuses another person of any wrong doing and that person is acquitted then the accuser should be exposed and fined.
Let's seek clarity not emotion. Based alone on the article, to conflate the factual and legal merits and analyses of Assange's and Murray's cases would be to do a great damage to Assange whom I wholly support. The former, unfortunately, sought to remove the security protections of the witnesses lawfully given by the court (whether they deserved protection or not is not to the point and entirely a separate matter). Whereas Assange sought to expose the unlawful and murderous acts of employees or agents of government politicians, which acts but for Assange's admirable fearlessness and courage, would have been covered up and gone totally unnoticed by the world. That the murderers and their complicit political masters could with impunity commit such acts intentionally and then go on to invoke laws to punish Assange for exposing them and deter other Assanges in future from exposing similar murders is positively diabolical if not evil. No civilised self-respecting court, in good faith, could say that it was the intention of the Parliament for such laws to be used in such unconscionable fashion or have such immoral consequences.