The London police force has wasted millions of pounds on detaining Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy for years.
There’s some crow to eat this morning, for anti-Assange, anti-Wikileaks people.
Last year we got confirmation in the form of a WikiLeaks-Strafor leak of all things, that Assange had been secretly indicted in the US, for his journalism.
On January 26, 2011, Fred Burton, the vice president of Stratfor, a leading private intelligence firm which bills itself as a kind of shadow CIA, sent an excited email to his colleagues. “Text Not for Pub,” he wrote. “We” – meaning the U.S. government – “have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.”
Well, it’s true. It’s not unexpected if you follow people who actually care about journalism and the truth. And it’s led to Assange being trapped in various prisons in and near London, while the UK, Swedish, American, and Australian legal and political systems toy with his freedom.
The American admission that they are still seeking to charge Assange with crimes, despite his activity falling under First Amendment protection for journalists, demonstrates the reason he’s opted to stay out of a Swedish jail.
The Swedish prosecutor who refused to travel to London to interview Assange in order to proceed with the case they want to build against him, has LEFT the case.
AA’s lawyer has been fired, and a new one has been chosen and approved by the court. AA is one of Assange’s accusers in Sweden.
And more shocking, a Swedish judge is set to speak publicly about what he’d do if he was directly handling Assange’s case! Just this week, Toronto’s Mayor Ford ended up in hot water for making radio comments about an active case in the Canadian justice system.
Speaking to Fairfax Media, Mr Assange condemned Judge Lindskog’s planned discussion of his case.
“If an Australian High Court judge came out and spoke on a case the court expected or was likely to judge, it would be regarded as absolutely outrageous,” he said.
“This development is part of a pattern in which senior Swedish figures, including the Swedish Foreign Minister, the Prime Minister and Minister for Justice, have all publicly attacked me or WikiLeaks.”
Justice Lindskog is chairman of the Supreme Court of Sweden, the country’s highest court of appeal. In announcing his forthcoming lecture, Adelaide University observed that “as one of Sweden’s most eminent jurists, he is uniquely able to provide an authoritative view of the Assange affair”.
… which is precisely why it’s not supposed to happen in public, until at least the accused has been acquitted if charged. Assange has still not even been charged with a crime in Sweden, so he can’t even formally defend his innocence in the matter. If he submits to the politically motivated extradition to Sweden, he’s justified in knowing that Sweden will eventually send him on to face political charges in the United States. Continue reading
The problem with how Sweden, the UK, and the United States have been treating Julian Assange of Wikileaks, has dragged on for years. It’s left the foremost journalist in the world stuck in a London apartment building that houses the Ecuadorian Embassy where Assange is trapped as a political prisoner. He sought asylum from the Swedish extradition order, and Ecuador granted him that request. Assange’s home country of Australia has sided with the United States in wanting him imprisoned and taken offline, because they’ve failed to negotiate his safe return to Australia or Ecuador where he could be free.
In February there was a great response to a New Statesman article by a former Assange supporter who has now betrayed him by working for Hollywood/CIA who is set to smear him in a widely distributed film.
Khan complains that Assange refused to appear in the film about WikiLeaks by the American director Alex Gibney, which she “executive produced”. Assange knew the film would be neither “nuanced” nor “fair” and “represent the truth”, as Khan wrote, and that its very title, We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks, was a gift to the fabricators of a bogus criminal indictment that could doom him to one of America’s hellholes. Having interviewed axe-grinders and turncoats, Gibney abuses Assange as paranoid. DreamWorks is also making a film about the “paranoid” Assange. Oscars all round.
It’s also worth reading this summary by WikiLea’s J. Farrell, of Assange’s present legal and political problems:
Over a lunch you [, Khan,] questioned this fear of extradition to the US, and when I asked you what you would do in his position you refused to answer the question. I asked you more than six times what you would do in his shoes. Having offered to cooperate with the Swedish investigation non-stop for the past two years and been refused with no proper explanation, and believing that you would end up in an American prison for decades, in solitary confinement and under SAMs, what would you do? You never gave me a concrete answer. Instead, you skirted the question with another question and discounted the numerous legal opinions out there, favouring instead an article by David Allen Green. I reiterated that Julian had never said that it would be likely in practice that he would face the death penalty, although the Espionage Act permits this. But more to the point, and one that everyone always ignores, there was (and still is) the fear of being extradited to face life imprisonment and almost certainly torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment for his publishing activities.
I told you that the Swedish authorities could, if they wanted to, charge Julian in absentia. Even if they were to do that, they should, according to their own procedures, conduct an interview with him before requesting his extradition. I repeated that he remains available even in the embassy for questioning by the Swedish authorities should they wish to employ the standard procedures they use regularly in other cases.
I think it was David Allen Green who I was arguing with once on Twitter about WikiLeaks. He’s clearly not very objective, and is out to present the situation in a way that will result in Assange ending up imprisoned.
In response to the sexual assault allegations, here are people who recognize what is going on:
Khan is rightly concerned about a “resolution” of the allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Putting aside the tissue of falsehoods demonstrated in the evidence in this case, both women had consensual sex with Assange and neither claimed otherwise; and the Stockholm prosecutor Eva Finne all but dismissed the case.
As Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote in the Guardian in August 2012, “. . . the allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction . . .
“The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will . . . [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?”
They are afraid of Skype, or a plane flight to London. Here’s a fricken map for them to find Julian Assange for that interview they claim to want on behalf of Assanges’ accusers.
People may not know exactly why Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange has been detained in the UK, then trapped in Ecuador’s embassy. The short answer is, because he embarrassed the US military intelligence community, they’ve waged a character assassination war upon him using his casual sex with women against him.
The US wouldn’t extradite him directly from the UK, because they win more discretely by pulling on Sweden’s strings. The US can continue to deny they’ve secretly indicted Assange for something like espionage, for Wikileaks having obtained the Cablegate secret files. If Assange did go to Sweden for questioning, they’d lock him up, without outside communication, charge him, jail him, then deport him to the US who at that time would reveal their sealed indictment. Australia, Assange’s home nation, would stand idly by, continuing to fail to protect him, so Gillard can protect Australia’s submissive intelligence relationship with the US.
“Assange conveniently left [Sweden] before [an interview with the prosecutor] could happen.” Not quite; his lawyer asked if he was wanted for questioning, and the prosecutor declined at that time. He left, after weeks, then was inconveniently called back. He’s been detained by the UK, or under the protection of asylum of Ecuador since 2010, and so the Swedish prosecutor should have gone to where her suspect was since she knows Assange can’t/won’t leave without ending up in a Swedish hole. The prosecutor has travelled abroad in such unusual cases before. She won’t this time because their game is won if Assange is detained and credulous people accept their bogus story.
The big picture is that the US is aiming to shut down Wikileaks through tying up Assange in a compromised justice system that detains people without trial for years (Manning), and hounds hackers to death with the threat of charges and financial ruin if they fight back (Swartz). That’s if their censorious proxy financial blockade doesn’t manage first. Without Wikileaks or similar journalistic organizations, it will be virtually impossible for the people to have intelligence required to subvert authoritarians in our governments and financial-fascist banking systems.
That’s why there are so many good professionals and resources going to defending Assange over these bogus, trumped up allegations of Swedish “rape”. One doesn’t need to know the intricacies of Swedish (or US, or UK) law to see the game afoot. Assange’s sexual habits are not what got him into this mess, they are a side show played up by dangerous parts of the American and related governments. If he’d have abstained from sex, they would have concocted a different plot along these same lines, the truth is not important to those in government seeking the ruin of Assange and Wikileaks. They are quite literally the enemies of truth, and open information.
American spy charged with spying, by his own government, when he revealed to reporters that the CIA was acting illegally by torturing people. Obama’s War on Whistle-blowers, rages on. Bradley Manning is rolling over in his pending grave for allegedly feeding Collateral Murder and other information to WikiLeaks.
Our ghoulish Globe and Mail thinks it’s a good thing that seniors will be without pensions, because they’ll have to work for their retirement instead. Kids looking for jobs must love this perspective too. Harper didn’t campaign on OAS cuts, but here they come anyway. Happy strong and stable majority, old dude Conservative voters. Not so smug now, are you?
Woman asks Obama to “dance a jig” after he offered to look at her husband’s resume! Truth is stranger than fiction. And I get the impression that CTV wants us to watch American football.
Canadian government website posts same press release for border Security and border Privacy, and few notice the DIFFERENCE. (Here’s the real “privacy” release, elsewhere.) For this huge oversight, a Flack Award was given to a Harper employee.