Well done Craig for standing with Julian.

Glenn Greenwald tells us some truths here.

Five lessons from the de-listing of MEK as a terrorist group
A separate justice system for American Muslims, the US embrace of terrorism, and other key political facts are highlighted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/iran-usa?newsfeed=true

Lesson One: There is a separate justice system in the US for Muslim Americans.
Lesson Two: The US government is not opposed to terrorism; it favors it.
Lesson Three: “Terrorism” remains the most meaningless, and thus the most manipulated, term in political discourse.
Lesson Four: Legalized influence-peddling within both parties is what drives DC.
Lesson Five: there is aggression between the US and Iran, but it’s generally not from Iran.

How’s he coping? It must be pretty restrictive and scary being confined to, what appears to be, a flat with no idea when you’re going to walk free. Better than being banged up, incommunicado in a Swedish or USA gaol though.

Does he have to be proven legally to have committed the crime, and then u will be guilty of aiding and abbeting

Good article by Greenwald again, I read it yesterday Mary and the implications are that paying the opposition to cause strife and unrest in Iran was an expensive undertaking for Obama and his predecessors, not just plain hypocrisy.

What an utterly repulsive Gardener this morning on R4. He ranted about Abu Hamza’s ability to evade justice and offered us some real news. Shocks, the Queen was aghast that there was no law to deport this man, and she said so…drum role… fanfare.

So what of this disheartening, shocking and repulsive piece you mooted at, is it still to come?

Wrt your comment, Craig, about the SS et al: When Pakistani poet and left-wing feminist, Kishwar Naheed’s house was being constantly surevilled by the ISI Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence) during the 1980s, she would take out trays of tea and biscuits every day to the two men assigned to watch her (supposedly clandestinely) in 110F heat, for which they were very grateful. It was also an act of resistance on her part. She was saying, “I’m watching you, watching me and I control the tea”. Tea is political. Tea is power. Perhaps, as an act of Situationism, you might leave two cups of tea on your doorstep, not for stray kittens, but for the foxes of the SS (and Uncle Tom Cobbly and all). ‘Tea with Assange’ – a potential new stage play title.

Dear Craig Murray, thank you for taking time off from your studies to visit Julian Assange. I am sure he appreciated it. He must be lonely, but he’s better off where he is sitting it out than sitting it out in a US penal colony.

Kellie Tranter, a human rights’ lawyer, made a speech last night encouraging everybody to rally round and give their support for Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. There has got to be more grass roots support for real democracy as opposed to what our governments call democracy.

http://kellietranter.com/2012/09/assange-manning-wikileaks-can-the-global-support-movement-hold-the-line/

All power to your ‘aiding and abetting’ of Assange’s fight for justice, Craig – yours is a very important voice in that fight, and a highly credible one, not least because you’ve ‘been there, done that’.

I hope you’ve found some highly useful material in what’s been added by commenters to your “Why I’m Convinced” post. I recommend particularly pages 3 and 4 of the comments. People from Sweden – I suspect from the Flashback forum – have been piling in to correct errors and misdirections introduced by one particular contributor, who seems to have been doing their utmost to knock your regular readers off-track. I’m sure you know who that is. Hopefully, you’ll see the wheat in the chaff and be able to make something of the factual clarifications added.

Hi Craig – perhaps Clark can help you there? He’s been following the whole debate very closely and I’m sure he can point you to the most salient new facts which have emerged.

Do tread lightly Craig, some of us fear Mr. Assange is playing his supporters like a cheap trombone and using them to spread information he knows to be false.

In a similar vein, the penchant some of you round here have for hanging on the every bitter word of Glenn Greewald is misguided at best.

GG – “I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner’s government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.”

So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find, meaning as it happens, almost invariably countries where gay people are persecuted, imprisoned and liable to be tortured or murdered by the government, and where the lives of gay people are far, far harder and more dangerous than Greenwald appears to understand – or care.

He’s an egotistical fool on the level of Judith Butler. And whereas Butler’s mostly just vain and stupid, Greenwald is truly a very nasty piece of work.

I am discontented enough with the British state and its unequal treatment of its citizens, but I’m not stupid enough to imagine that taking sides with any of its enemies is either wise or the right thing to do, because those countries are in general at least as much against me as against my country.

Greenwald’s intellect is stunted. He doesn’t seem to be able to handle three conceptual categories at a time, for instance ‘ideal’ ‘bad’ and ‘worse’. He seems to think that ‘worse’ is what you turn to to make ‘bad’ better.

Or perhaps he just thinks he’d get special protected status from the foreign homophobes and antisemites he shills for, just as that fool Arrigoni did.

So, CE, a very simple question. Let us assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that everything you say about Greenwald et al is true.

Would you feel, for example, that a military invasion and occupation of Iran would be justified because of the undoubtedly despicable homophobic policies of the Iranian regime? And would you also support a military invasion of Saudi Arabia on the basis of the also undoubtedly despicable homophobic (and even more misogynist) policies of the regime? And of Pakistan because of the undoubtedly despicable nature of the blasphemy laws and consequent persecution of religious minorities (and majorities)?

No SS, I would support criticism of, and argument against these regimes, not military action. Criticisms that GG cannot bring himself to make of any country that will join him in cheap US baiting.

Thank you, CE for answering so promptly and clearly. I do appreciate it.

“then why am I, and others helping him, not under arrest for aiding and abetting or conspiracy?”

Craig, have you considered turning yourself in to the local police station for your “crime”? It would be very interesting how they react.

“Craig, have you considered turning yourself in to the local police station for your “crime”? It would be very interesting how they react.” John, at 1:29pm on 25th Sept 2012.

Intriguing thought. But don’t do it. Just give them cups of tea. Gallons and gallons (litres and litres) of it. Float beatifically on an ocean of chai.

@CE: Perhaps it’s your mis-dentification of who its or our enemies are, and lacking any, having to construct them in your mind first then make them your enemy in the real world by like-minded psychos turning the screw on them, slicing their bodies up. It might be better to talk of enemy governments, than enemy nations, religions, people or whatever unnatural hates you harbour. It’s fortunate for you that your enemies are conveniently also those of powerful states apparently. I suppose in your case that’s coincidence as you have lots to go around.

You could always insist that your brother bangs you up for a few hours at his local nick, don’t forget to tip off the press first though…LOL..

Let us hope, that those who have problems with grasping the meaning of Assange’s releases and those who support his case with sane arguments, government communications the taxpayers paid for and two million others were privy to, can bring it upon themselves to argue their differences with the man himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reN0dOQHFPs

I mean, who needs to bare their mundane mind games here, the third most popular political blog of all? attacking Mr. Greenwald here will not grate his ire much, not disguised as two letters or under one’s real name?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8kV5j7beu8

turdly, oh master of cheap trickery, how would you like to take your shit list somewhere else and have your row with Judith Butler and Glen in the privacy of your own four rubber walls?

Damn those who defend the attack on innocent civilians, journalists and children with modern 50 cal. weaponry, no hypocritical, corporate loving, tail wagging Government has the right to lie to their citizens all the time and I hope that these releases carry on until we can paint the walls with warmongers and arms dealers.

I’m disappointed with the succinctness of CE’s answer to Suhayl, aware though of the unreasonableness of expecting something meaty to chew on. Why Iran and not Saudi Arabia on the exact same grounds, if its a matter of limited supplies of cannon-fodder on your own side CE, then assume limitless blood sacrifice of others, would you ‘do’ them too then.

On getting minorites onside on emotive issues, these are issues not just for the gay community worldwide and believers that war is the wrong answer -always. No-one should be pulled both ways, as these persecutions are an attack on individuality, they are no more of specific concern to any special interest than to all our interests. There is no conflict though, peaceful co-existence is the prevailing natural state, the warmongers have to work really hard, lie and pull all the strings, torture truth to show cause.

Re: G.G. Just type out a list of countries the U.S. has bombed since 1945 and ask how many of them had in any way attacked the U.S. Says it all really. Another small fact the U.K. ambassador to Afghanistan, “I forget his name” recently stated that said country was one of the poorest on earth yet the C.I.A.has listed its worth as 2-3 trillion dollars in minerals,rare earth metals oil & gas etc.So multiply that a bit and we have a VERY good reason for being there.

CE, thanks for your words of wisdom “Mr. Assange is playing his supporters like a cheap trombone and using them to spread information he knows to be false.”

I suppose I must be one of those trombones then. What a naive fool I must be for not recognising the clear signs that Mr Assange doctored all those cockpit videos and diplomatic cables!

Maybe you can supply the link to the original cockpit videos. You know, the ones that show people falling to the ground after being showered with party invitations.

Cryptonym

25 Sep, 2012 – 1:50 pm

@CE: Perhaps it’s your mis-dentification(sic) of who its or our enemies are, and lacking any, having to construct them in your mind first then make them your enemy in the real world by like-minded psychos(sic) turning the screw on them, slicing their bodies up. It might be better to talk of enemy governments, than enemy nations, religions, people or whatever unnatural hates you harbour. It’s fortunate for you that your enemies are conveniently also those of powerful states apparently. I suppose in your case that’s coincidence as you have lots to go around.

—————————-

Any chance of a translating most of that into English? I’m not very fluent in gobbledygook.

Speaking of Judith Butler, you could give her a run for her money.

Dom,

I wasn’t referring to information released by wikileaks, but rather false information that Craig and other supporters of JA have released regarding his alleged crimes in Sweden.

I will give this to JA, his successful blurring of the lines between himself the flawed individual, and wikileaks the movement, has been a masterstroke in deflecting unwelcome criticism.

CE.

Thanks for making clear that you do not doubt the information released by Wikileaks.

You continue ” simply to provide evidence to support your assertions.

You go on to refer to…..” false information that Craig and other supporters of JA have released regarding his alleged crimes in Sweden.”

Let me then ask you to educate me with a few examples of such false information.

@Craig – visiting JA in the embassy isn’t aiding and abetting him skip bail.

@Suhayl – you’re feeding the troll!

CE.

Sorry, line two of my last post escaped the delete button. Please ignore that and give some examples of the “false information”.

Dom,

Goran Rudling outlined 15 false claims alone in Craig’s last two posts concerning JA;

Mr Murray’s 14 false claim.
There is just a short comment to each one.

1 “Sofia Wilén refused to sign her statement”
Not true. Evidence: Interrogators’ note Sofia Wilén’s statement

2 “Sofia Wilén have not signed her statement to this day”
Not true. On 2 September Sofia Wilén was re-interviewed. Extremely unlikely that the interview was approved during this interview.

3 “The prosecutor told the British High Court that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were witnesses to Sofia’s interview.”
Not true. There is not one shred of evidence suggesting this is true. Mr. Murray have been asked repeatedly to show evidence. Have flatly refused.

4 “Anna Ardin did not take Sofia to the nearest and best police station.”
Not true. Klara Närpolisstation was the nearest and best police station to go to.

5 “Rather than see another officer, the two women waited two hours until Krans came on duty.”
Not true. Evidence: Memo Linda Wassgren

6 “Anna Ardin was present throughout Krans’ interview of Wilen”
Not true. There is not one single piece of evidence that indicates this. All evidence shows just the opposite.

7 “Anna Ardin did not report Julian until two days after she had sat through Wilen’s interview with her friend Krans.”
Not true. Evidence: Anna Ardin’s police complaint

8 “The Klara Närpolisstation does have video-taping facilities.”
Not true. Evidence: Interview Chief of Klara Närpolisstation

9 “Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret.”
Not true. No trials in Sweden are in secret

10 “Sofia Wilén’s statement alleging rape was drawn up by Irmeli Krans in Anna Ardin’s presence.”
Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that Anna Ardin was present at Klara Närpolisstation between 18:40 and 19:28 when statement was finished

11 “Anna Ardin discussed with Julian Assange his desire for sex with Sofia Wilén”
Not true. There is no evidence that suggests that this is true

12 “Anna Ardin took Sofia Wilén to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Sofia Wilén’s story into a sexual assault”
Not true. The choice of the police station was the best and nearest. There is nothing in the police interview that is “twisted” in order to make it into a sexual assault. If there is anything, it is just information pointing in the other direction

13 “Sweden has astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws.”
Not true. Sweden’s laws are 120 years behind Canada’s and many years behind England’s, Australia’s etc.

14 “Some days later than 22 August (25): Anna Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence;”
Not true. Evidence: Evidence report. Condom was picked up by Sara Wennerblom on 18:12 August 21

15 “If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?”
A silly insinuation that an accused like Julian did not know who his accusers are.

Hi Jon\craig,

Maybe you are right and I’m the one being ‘played’, but I find it hard to question GR’s motivations considering his work on AA’s deleted tweets and his appearance as a witness for JA?

Fair point Jon, some posters have questioned GR’s claims and I’m not saying I agree with ALL of Goran’s claims, but most of them are legitimate questions. And we can say without doubt that at least a few(Video facilities at Klara and AA being present throughout SW’s interview, are plainly mistakes).

CE 5.13pm

Are you aware that Goran Rudling appeared for the defence as a hostile witness? (That’s their description of him, by the way, not mine.) As to his motivations – and this is purely my personal belief – I think it relates to his being a lifelong campaigner to get the rape laws in Sweden changed to include the concept of consent. In Sweden, you see, rape needs to include an element of violence or coercion – consent can be present as long as the allegations include one or other of those two elements. Goran thinks the central issue in rape is one of consent. I do too.

Perhaps this need for elements of violence/coercion explains the three short phrases which were added into Sophie Wilen’s witness statement between the time she was interviewed (20 August 2010) and the date her statement was lodged on the police DurTva computer system on 26 August 2010, the time you will see on the copy available on the internet. There is some evidence of the original statement being passed by Mats Gehlin, the supervising police officer, to Claes Borgstrom, the court-appointed (and paid) complainants’ “counsellor” sometime over 23rd/25th August for review/revision.

I suspect this Assange case, with the international attention it brings and the ‘grey area’ consent issue at its core, is what Goran hopes will finally bring about that change in Swedish law – if it ever gets to trial. However, so many flaws in the underlying case and the police investigation have come to light in the meantime, that I think Goran’s approach has now become to throw as many obfustications and misdirections in the fire – not to mention completely ignoring any concerns regarding onward/US extradition – as he can in order to prevent popular support building against the extradition. He won’t get his cause celebre case to bolster his own activist cause that way, you see? I’m not attacking Goran’s cause at all here, in fact I rather approve of it. But misinforming the public as to the true facts in Assange’s case isn’t a good way to go about it.

Guys, guys…….there is really no point reacting to CE’s posts, because it is clear that he’s not here to make serious points but merely to disrupt, cretae diversions and get issues bogged down in sterile point scoring.

For Heaven’s sake, let’s stop feeding the beast. Let him post away, but let’s all resolve NOT to respond to his attempted disruption. Let’s show some self-discipline.

@Sven, thank you. The Goran Rudling fan club has evolved into its own monster, demanding to be fed regularly. Unfortunately, it cannot digest what it is fed so it frequently suffers from verbal diarrhea.

Hey at least CE is on topic, ~kind of.

@CE
.
GG – “I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner’s government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.”

So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find, meaning as it happens, almost invariably countries where gay people are persecuted, imprisoned and liable to be tortured or murdered by the government, and where the lives of gay people are far, far harder and more dangerous than Greenwald appears to understand – or care.
.
CE, you are such a fucking idiot.
.
The facts stand in the way of your argument. Greenwald was writing in the same vein well before the scenario you point to, totally simplistically, as being the basis of his forensic analysis of US foreign policy.
.
You need to shut up. I’ve read your name each time with gritted teeth. It’s obvious you are not interested in what Craig writes, it’s painfully obvious you’re here to derail and ‘redress the balance’ etc.
.
I hope you’re being paid for the rubbish you spew, or are you the sort of useful idiot that is happy to work for free out of feelings of inferiority?
.
(Sorry to the rest of you, you know I’ve read Craig’s site for aeons and don’t usually engage in a spat, but this post is the straw that broke the camel’s back).

Sorry, Sven. Just saw what you wrote. Uh, fail, Felix.

Going by nearly a decade of experience on a Usenet group I created many years ago, which was subject to several and various efforts to spook it, I doubt very strongly indeed that CE is posting here in good faith.

I’d reject the hypothesis of good faith at the 99.9% level.

Göran I can tolerate because without him Anna Ardin’s deleted tweets would not have been discovered. He also has a lot of knowledge and some of his comments, and posts on his blog are, I believe, a positive help to Julian Assange. Like the statement from Ms S’s work colleague which I have not seen reproduced elsewhere.

http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police-marie-en.pdf

Also I really think he has no desire to see Julian Assange convicted, and much of what he writes is tongue in cheek. He plays devil’s advocate with sometimes an excruciatingly wicked sense of humour. CE’s motives are more worrying to me. The first response I saw from him was directed at me after I contacted The Independent newsroom to find out why no media outlets in this country were commenting on the Expressen article published 18 months ago which revealed that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were friends and had apparently colluded in trying to bring down Julian Assange. I have seen no comments from him since then that have shown any change in the viewpoint, including today’s, that have shown the slightest iota of sympathy for Julian Assange. Draw your own conclusions.

John Goss 9.30pm

The document you link to is Witness I statement in the police protocols, available since February 2011.

Here’s all of them for you:

http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml

Some people from the Swedish Flashback forum have been commenting on Craig’s “Why I’m convinced” post in the last few days and have confirmed that the Rixstep translations are “perfect” and “a superb job”. It’s the most authoritative source.

Some points to consider:
Have they been here a long time or just turned up when Assange was mentioned? Have they ever contributed anything of actual interest? Any laughs? Do they have redeeming features? If so, to what extent? Do we unnecessarily rely on them? How much is it a matter of say Texan abruptness or European certitude turning up in a polite English village?

Seeing the disrespect persist and be now dragged over to this new thread topic suggests those concerned at best have low social awareness, some most likely have ulterior motives. Some have indicated they see it as a battle, firing parting shots after the moderator says goodnight. When being firmly handled, they become manipulative and try to engage again – “We…”
Others may just need to be told “Enough!” more often.

Whatever the causes, the outcome is that it polarises and disrupts the conversation, driving out the middle ground and discourages input from other contributors who have constructive input or are able to respectfully disagree and try to convince others to see their viewpoint.

Presumably this is not the first such blog with these issues, and hopefully Craig and the moderators are open to seeking out some FAQs or other guidance on how best to educate and otherwise manage this issue, so as to care for the community and the moderators themselves, before fatigue or worse takes over.

Craig,

if it has by now been translated into English, perhaps he would appreciate a copy of Stieg Larsson’s manual for journalists:

“ÖVERLEVA DEADLINE – handbok för hotade journalister”
“Survive the Deadline” (no, that does not refer to the editor )

Full biography here:
http://librarykvpattom.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/stieg-larsson/

I found a very interesting open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev requesting that Marianne Ny be investigated for the way she’s handled the Assange case:

http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE

there’s a translation into Swedish too.

Welcome back Craig – Talking about America and conspiracies and I make no apologies here, here’s Piers Morgan interviewing Jesse Ventura – absolutely electric!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7WGMGHNHfw

Arbed,

regarding our discussion on another thread about extradition(forgetting for a moment that there is currently no application and that it would be easier to extradite JA from the UK than Sweden), you stated your belief(forgive me if I am wrong), that further trumped charges could and would be added to JA’s charge sheet after extradition, thus getting around any conditions of extradition and resulting in JA facing the death penalty.

Would the doctrine of speciality not apply or is there a history od this doctrine being overlooked? The Legal Dictionary defines the doctrine as “when a person has been surrendered for extradition, he or she can be prosecuted or punished only for the crimes for which extradition was requested, and not for any other crimes committed prior to the surrender. The doctrine was first established over a hundred years ago, in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886). In Rauscher, the defendant, a U.S. citizen, was extradited from Great Britain for the beating death of a ship’s crew member on a U.S. vessel but was indicted and tried on a charge of Cruel and Unusual Punishment based on the same act. Although the speciality principle was not specifically enumerated in the treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an accused “shall not be arrested or tried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings.”

John Goss

“Göran I can tolerate because without him Anna Ardin’s deleted tweets would not have been discovered. He also has a lot of knowledge and some of his comments, and posts on his blog are, I believe, a positive help to Julian Assange. Like the statement from Ms S’s work colleague which I have not seen reproduced elsewhere.”

Goran got the tweet info via the Flashback site and latched onto it with speed, which is to his credit. Nothing original though and no credit to the Flashback source from Goran at all. His ex wife was a press spokesman for the Immigration Board whilst Julian Assange applied for a work permit in Sweden to set up Wikileaks. As a result of the so called sexual assualt charges and political pressure from the conservative govt, the application was dismissed. The board did though at a very early stage have a copy of the police so called sexual assualt protocal. Goran got hold of this document via his ex wife and with info still not widely available played the cards to his chest.

The Stockholm branch – International Jurist seminar today is to look at the damage done to Swedens international credibility in the Assange case. The hypocrit morons are now starting to get the message that the international community are outraged by their cunning and deceitful behaviour. The chickens are coming home to roost…. The only person with credibility at this conference is the former judge Brita Sundberg Weitman. A brave woman taking a principled stand against the primitive nationalistic position of mainstream Sweden in the Assange case. Rudling is on the panel which should make the soup bitter sweet in taste!!.

I would have attended if their were decision making government representatives on the panel, this is after all a political case which everyone in the civilised world understands.

Rudlig should propose at this seminar, Swedish state funded dildos to their feminist compatriots. They can in the future play with their dildos and die out out as a race. We have other civilized issues to deal with in the international community.

Re – Seminar today.

Watching Goran Rudling entertainment show today should be well worth the 50 SEK entry fee…

Dull, rainy and wintry conditions in Stockholm today, a good laugh is whats needed!!

@CE — Haven’t read through the whole thread yet, sorry, but as an American I wanted to respond to your comment about GG where you said: “So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find…”

I’ll let Mark Twain speak for me: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Glennzilla is all right by me, a patriot hero in fact. Can’t say the same for what calls itself a government in Washington.

Best wishes all.

CE 12.41am

Thank you for asking about the “specialty” issue. This is included in Section 58 of the 2003 Extradition Act (the legislation on which British extraditions under the EAW is based). Specialty does, as you point out, mean that someone can only be extradited for one crime, and therefore cannot be onward-extradited for something else entirely. All well and good.

Except…

Theresa May (or whoever the Home Secretary is) can waive specialty under Section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003 and her decision is not necessarily subject to judicial review. Here’s the link showing that:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/58

CE 12.41am

Sorry CE – just for clarity, I am, of course, talking about extradition to the US via Sweden and you are talking about extradition direct to the US from the UK (which is not what’s happening). My belief is that the US request for extradition – from Sweden, but to which the UK’s Section 58 Specialty doctrine/UK consent would apply – are likely to be of the “unauthorised access to government computer systems”/”theft of documents” (ie criminal as opposed to political) variety in order not to run into any bars in either Sweden’s or the UK’s legislation against extradition on political/death penalty charges.

This would avoid there being any backlash at all if Theresa May was to waive Section 58 specialty/consent to onward extradition, Sweden to US.

I thought I’d paste the full text of that open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General I mentioned earlier. I’ve left out the first sentence, as that now seems out of date. At a guess, I’d say this letter was originally written prior to the Supreme Court hearing but it brings up many issues that are still current. The original at the link also contains half a dozen hyperlinks within in. The ones to the Swedish Prosecution website setting out Swedish procedural rules are a real eye-opener and clearly indicate that Marianne Ny has broken all sorts of due process guidelines:

http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE

Mr Anders PERKLEV
Prosecutor General
Office of the Prosecutor General
Östermalmsgsatan 87c
Box 5553
S-114 85 Stockholm Sweden

By email: anders.perklev@aklagare.se

OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN

Dear Anders Perklev,

Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.

On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?

Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?

Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.

Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However, Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?

Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.

http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml

This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”

Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.

I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?

Yours sincerely,

[name] [UK/Swedish/Australian Citizen / Citizen of _______ ]

Thanks very much for that new information Rico Santin. Enjoy the seminar. And please keep us informed as to what, if any, conclusions are drawn. If it’s any consolation I’ve just walked the dogs in driving rain.

Thanks Arbed. We are so ill-informed in this country.

Yes. Thanks to Arbed, Rico, John and all for shining such a revealing light on these issues.

Thanks also to the CE committee for scurrying about and spewing out all that bile and disinformation. My money’s on you probably being a bunch of ex Oxbridge chaps and gals on an assignment. If not then the “intelligence services” my taxes pay for aren’t doing their job. Whatever we are paying you all, you aint worth it. I suggest your minders reallocate you to persuading us how those cuddly Gulf Despots are buying freedom and democracy for Syria. Maybe the BBC can give you your very own sitcom.

And thanks of course to Craig. You’re a national treasure!

@ John Goss and Dom

Well, if you fancy joining Craig in a little “aiding and abetting” there’s nothing to stop you emailing that open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General…

Good idea Arbed. I’m onto it now. Is the email address on the open letter? I’ll check.

John,

It’s actually included above. All you have to do is cut and paste. Oh, but hang on, having the version with the hyperlinks in it too would be good, I guess. I just cut out the first sentence of the letter as it appears on the Justice4Assange site.

Please spread

John Goss, would you like my signature as well, ehh how do we do this?
Could you put it up on your blog for a limited time, with a link so others can sign it? Indeed should this be replicated elsewhere?
Once we go your link, we can publish it to other interested fora, see how many we can get in a week.

Arbed,

Thanks for the suggestion. The open letter is very revealing. Swedish Prosecutor-General duly emailed.

@ Nevermind 10.18am

Oh, the way I read it, that letter is designed for anyone to cut and paste and send it from their own email. But I suppose there would be value in setting it up in a way to collect signatures and send it that way. Any idea how that could work, John?

Sent. I also copied in my M.P. Steve McCabe and Attorney General, Dominic Grieve dominic.grieve.mp@parliament.co.uk

“Dear Mr Anders Perklev,

Many people in my country want to know why Marianne Ny appears to have been given special privileges to prosecute a minor case against Julian Assange. Is this the way the Swedish judicial system works? Every man I know would not step foot in Sweden any more for fear of trumped up charges being brought against them. Marianne Ny is supposed to be a prosecutor not a persecutor.

We are also concerned why facts found in articles like the one in Expressen http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/expressen-avslojar/interrogator-in-the-assange-case-friend-with-woman-accusing-wikileaks-founder/ published 18 months ago which showed a friendship existed between Irmeli Krans (police interrogator) and Anna Ardin (complainant) have not been reproduced in the UK media. Does Sweden not believe in the free transfer of important information that could clear a good man’s name?

The following open letter states my concerns, and those of many other ordinary people in England.

By email: anders.perklev@aklagare.se

OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN

Dear Anders Perklev,

The extradition of Julian Assange to Sweden under the European Arrest Warrant is currently before the UK Supreme Court, who will decide whether to hear his appeal on the grounds it has not been issued by a proper judicial authority. Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.

On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?

Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?

Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.

Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However,Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?

Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.

http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml

This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”

Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.

I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?

Yours sincerely,

[John Goss, Birmingham, UK

Swedish translation by Joakim Ramstedt

Öppet Brev till Riksåklagare Anders Perklev

Anders Perklev
Riksåklagaren
Östermalmsgsatan 87C
Box 5553
114 85 Stockholm Sverige

Genom e-post: anders.perklev@aklagare.se

ÖPPET BREV TILL ANDERS PERKLEV, Riksåklagaren, SVERIGE

Bäste Anders Perklev,

Utlämning av Julian Assange till Sverige enligt den europeiska arresteringsordern är för närvarande under behandling i Storbritanniens Högsta domstol. Det som skall avgöras är om man skall höra hans överklagande med motiveringen att den inte har utfärdats av en laga rättslig myndighet. Mr Assanges fall har orsakat internationell uppmärksamhet och många europeiska medborgare undrar därför vilka rättssäkerhetsgarantier och skydd som finns i EAW systemet för personer som står inför polisutredningen i Europa. Mot bakgrund av detta, skulle ni möjligen kunna förklara för både svenska och icke svenska medborgare de aspekter av det svenska rättsliga förfarande för vilket du som Riksåklagaren har det övergripande ansvaret?

Den 6 december 2011 gjorde den svenska Åklagarmyndigheten ett uttalande och påpekade att Sverige beslutat att göra alla offentliga åklagare till så kallat ’rättsliga myndigheter’ för att därmed kunna utfärda europeiska arresteringsordrar enligt ramdirektivet. Detta förutsågs inte av de brittiska parlamentarikerna vid utarbetandet av den brittiska utlämningslagen 2003 (Hansard). En lag som starkt betonade att sådana arresteringsordrar bara bör kunna ges av en domstol. Får jag fråga varför du kände det nödvändigt att göra ovannämnda uttalande sagda datum?

Mr Assanges namn läcktes till pressen, till synes av Stockholms åklagarmyndighet, vilket är olagligt enligt Sveriges lagar. Skulle du kunna beskriva – för en internationell publik – vilka åtgärder som vidtogs för att undersöka detta och en sammanfattning av resultaten. Har de ansvariga identifierats och hur har detta i så fall hanterats?

Har du någon statistik eller uppskattning över hur ofta en svensk åklagare utser sig själv som förundersökningsledare i ett ärende? På den svenska åklagarmyndighetens engelska hemsida står det: ’När det gäller mindre allvarliga brott fortsätter polisen att leda förundersökningen’. Den allvarligaste anklagelsen mot Julian Assange beskrivs på åklagarmyndighetens egen webbplats som ’ett mindre allvarligt brott’. Det är därför svårt att förstå varför Marianne Ny var inblandad i fallet som utredningschef i detta skede.

Konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ från 2000 används väl fortfarande vanligen för att förhöra medborgare i andra länder? Marianne Ny uppgav dock att brittisk och svensk lag hindrade henne från att förhöra Julian Assange i London, vilket därmed var osant. Hennes uttalande togs senare tillbaks. Vilka disciplinära åtgärder är tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare när en högt uppsatt åklagare vilseleder allmänheten på detta sätt?

Kan du beskriva – om så bara i allmänna termer – på vilka grunder detta fall öppnades på nytt den 1 september 2010 efter Eva Finné, en högt uppsatt åklagare som utsetts av dig att granska ärendet, annullerade den ursprungliga arresteringsordern?

’Jag anser att det inte finns anledning att misstänka att han har begått våldtäkt. Detta gör att det nu endast återstår ett fall av sexuellt ofredande att undersöka.’
- Chefsåklagare Eva Finné När man studerar det läckta polisprotokollet på Internet – som miljontals människor över hela Europa har gjort – verkar det endast finnas ett nytt bevis som kan ha uppstått mellan Eva Finnés beslut den 25 augusti 2010 och återupptagandet av förundersökningen: en trasig använd kondom. Emellertid framgår det av den rättsmedicinska analysen från den 25 oktober 2010, vilken ingår i åtalsprotokollet, att detta bevis inte styrker något brott. Några anklagelser relaterade till detta objekt är inte heller nämnda i den europeiska arresteringsordern som utfärdades av Marianne Ny den 18 november 2010. För att tala klarspråk kunde nämligen ingen DNA varken från målsägare eller misstänkt hittas på denna kondom.

http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml

Detta förefaller inte uppfylla Åklagarmyndighetens krav på objektivitet. På din myndighets hemsida kan man läsa: ’Teknisk bevisning måste naturligtvis tas upp och utredas på ett korrekt och säkert sätt. Åklagaren måste också vara objektiv när han eller hon inleder ett åtal. Under rättegången är det visserligen åklagarens uppgift att bevisa att ett brott har begåtts, men åklagaren är även skyldig att ta vederbörlig hänsyn till något som skulle kunna förändra situationen när det gäller bevisning’.

Återigen, vänligen förklara – för den svenska och internationella allmänheten – om detta är ett disciplinärende och i så fall vilka disciplinära åtgärder finns tillgängliga för dig som riksåklagare?

Särskilt bekymmersamt är att konventionen om ’Mutual Legal Assistance’ inte har använts i detta fall. Enligt den svenska rättegångsbalken ’bör utredningen bedrivas så att ingen person i onödan utsätts för misstanke eller för onödiga kostnader eller besvär’ (kapitel 23, paragraf 4) och det råder ingen tvekan om att en stor del av både svenska och brittiska skattebetalares pengar har gått till spillo i dividerandet om denna utlämning i domstol, när mycket enklare metoder skulle kunna ha använts för att förhöra Julian Assange. Kan du förklara de mekanismer genom vilka England ersätts för sina kostnader när dom representerar den svenska åklagarmyndigheten i de brittiska domstolarna? Likaså vilka vägar står öppna för Mr Assange att söka ersättning för sina stora personliga rättegångskostnader, i sin kamp mot detta missbruk av den europeiska arresteringsorder processen?

Med vänlig hälsning

John Goss, Birmingham, UK”

I included details of the Expressen article not to criticise the Prosecutor General so much as to awaken Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Nick Clegg and Steve McCabe (all of whom were copied in) to the fact that we know what is going on.

Arbed, I’ve done it and when moderated it will appear. As you say cut and paste and put your name and nationality in the appropriate places. I added comments of my own.

Nevermind, it’s on my blog.

http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/open-letter-to-swedish-prosecutor.html

@ John Goss 10.44am

Are you signed up to MediaLens? (I’m not, unfortunately). I was wondering if you could cross-post it there? Letter-writing and emails are a specialty of their Alerts, it seems to me.

Thanks john and Arbed, Rico et al.

@ Mary. The two gentlemen arrested and interviewed had to be released for lack of evidence. As yet nothing new has emerged from the murder near Sandringham Palace.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk_detective_s_plea_for_information_over_alisa_death_after_it_emerges_no_further_action_to_be_taken_against_two_men_arrested_1_1528863

Arbed I am not signed up to Medialens either but I have sent an email to one of the editors there containing a link.

Sounds good, John!

So, now I’m getting in competitive mood, I’ve just emailed it to Mark Weisbrot at Just Foreign Policy – they do regular petition/open letters on the Bradley Manning and Assange cases.

I’ll take your media watchdog cross-posting and raise you one…

Your a star, Arbed. Keep up the good work. Julian Assange will be out of the Ecuadorian Embassy within 12 months and a free man. They cannot keep up thier charade forever.

“their” that is. Pity you can’t edit once you’ve commented.

Well done John for your letter to Sweden. I have just bought a few lengths of planed Swedish timber boards and thought how smooth and beautiful they are and sweet smelling, so unlike the Swedish legal system in this case.

and thanks for that Sandringham update Nevermind. Something stinks.

Julian Assange speaks to the UN tonight 23.30 our time and Hague is meeting the Foreign Minister from Ecuador. So it says here.

http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1348645457.html

I’ll start again. “You’re a star, Arbed”.

Thanks Mary. I’ve got a feeling the Assange battle is one we are going to win with persistence.

Anyone writing a letter to Mr. Assange asking why he fled Sweden, skipped bail after exhausting his legal avenues, and seems intent on destroying wikileaks reputation along with his own? No, thought not. Any responsible leader of an idealistic organisation like wikileaks would have stood down from their position until the allegations were settled by due process, but not Our Hero he’s above all that sort of stuff, better to blur the lines between yourself and wikileaks and use it as a form of shield against personal allegations that have nothing to do with it.

It is extremely unfortunate that this case has been politicised, but the man primarily responsible for that is currently holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

CE 1.50pm – [translation] Does my butt look hurt in this comment?

Yes Jon, I know you are middle category and have been consistently fair minded and reasonable on this matter but it seems like you are in a minority, and with a touch of self awareness I am probably in the category that is over critical of JA, due to my distaste for some of his actions. But you’d have to be blind not to see some the myopic hero worship that some indulge in. You are right it is snide to consistently use the Our Hero tag and I will refrain from now on, let’s hope some of those smearing SW and the Swedish legal process do the same.

I wish I could agree with you the blurring of the lines, but I thing JA could have been a lot more proactive separating himself from Wikileaks when the brown stuff started to hit the fan.

CE 2.15pm

Ok, and sorry for my snideness above – a bit uncalled for, I admit – but I’d just like to make it clear that I would be doing EXACTLY as I am now if I ever came across another case like this one, the Swedish investigation/ extradition of Assange.

You assume that people like me cannot separate our support of the Wikileaks project from the man who heads it, but that is not so in my case. I am doing what I am doing now because I believe in justice. Period. It is the blatancy of the very obvious miscarriage of justice in this Assange case which matters to me, and that would apply equally if the same thing was happening to Joe Normal of Normal Town, UK as far as I am concerned.

You forget what I said in one of my first posts here: I initially took an interest in this case because I was a rape victim who became interested in how the crime of rape is prosecuted generally because of my own personal experience.

Repeat: I believe in justice. THAT’S my motivation.

John Goss,

The Flashback site is the most popular source of anonymous whistle blowing in Sweden. The Flashback people are not happy with Goran Rudling for not giving due credit to where the source first emerged.

Gorans site in Sweden would most probably be receiving substantial state funds for social work to the benefit of society, like giving info to victims of rape and the public etc. I am not sure if he falls into this category but it can be checked out. This could explain his “bitter sweet” relationship with the Assange case. The media in Sweden and literally all of them receive state grants to survive, hence their position on the Assange case- “You cant bite the hand that feeds you.” The Assange case also gives Rudling work ethic credibility and draws unique viewers to his site which adds to more money from the state.

I will not attend the seminar today. Their are NO decision making people on the panel and I have no time to dilly dally. I am a businessman and not a typical social activist or pro wikileaks man but understand Sweden and its contradictions having lived here for decades. I think it is morally digusting when NO one is made to account for rendition flights from a so called neutral liberal democratic state. We are living in a changing world where the Latin Americans (ALBA countries) are bring about democratic order against economic exploitation and racism. Countries like Sweden are hell bent on keeping the status quo. This is the reason why Assange is being squeazed.

Arbed,

Fair enough and I apologise for my snide generalisation. I’m glad you are treating this case like any other, but again I suggest you are in a minority. I’m grateful for your research and that of GR, my knowledge of this case and the arguments around it has expanded exponentially since visiting this site. However I still think you are misguided in certain areas and if both sides of the argument can provide corrections surely that is a step towards Truth and Justice that you desire? Yet as soon as discrepancies are pointed out in JA’s story the normal reply is a volley of abuse and heads stuck in the sand.

Hi CE, which particular correction/s is it you require? I do know this case very well, so perhaps I can help?

@Arbed, “I believe in justice. THAT’S my motivation.”

I second that, emphatically!

@ Rico, “I think it is morally disgusting … We are living in a changing world … where the Latin Americans (ALBA countries) are bring about democratic order against economic exploitation and racism.”

Yes it is, and if you close your eyes you can almost, on the very edge of hearing, softly perceive Cate Blanchett’s beginning lines from The Lord of The Rings films,

“The world is changing, I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air…”

Quirky remarks on the side, it is saddening, if not unexpected.

I read a comment a while back, that defined Sweden today as a “twilight” country, a county that has gone past it economical/cultural/ethical peak, and now is in a state of decline.

And I do wonder if that is not an essential part of the engine that continuously generates, and sustain many of the growing and ever widening paradoxes and blatant hypocrisy, that are so rife under the surface in the Swedish society today.

All the hype aside, I strongly believe that we are very vulnerable economical, and with a very USA friendly government in charge, negligible or allayed journalistic scrutiny, Sweden does not today have either the will nor the courage to stand up to any “requests” for cooperation.

We are so afraid of losing some of what we do have, not least our image of economical and social pre eminence, that “we” are willing to sacrifice our moral and ethical integrity for it.

That is a lot of speculation of course, but I do think there are many signs that Swedish politicians are under considerate pressure, and for whatever reasons, it is curious to contemplate, and possibly relevant in regard to the discussion in what manner this might play out, I believe.

Rico Santan, thank you very much for helpful information it would otherwise be difficult to get without living in Sweden and knowing the language. We are indebted to you. And thank you too for the courteous way in which you couch your facts. A good few who comment here are confrontational.

We are definitely living in a changing world, and it is not changing for the better. As you can see the UK media has been gagged from speaking about this case in any depth. Assange’s name is usually mentioned in the same sentence as the word rape. Even my MP tweeted “Rape is a serious charge & I think Mr Assange should be extradited but consider what might happen if we start invading foreign embassies”. I tried to take him to task over this since he assumed, as many more do from the brainwashing that JA had committed rape. He did not respond.

As Mary mentioned (at 12.45 p.m.) Julian Assange and the Ecuadorian foreign minister are addressing the UN tonight. I quite warmed to the Ecuadorian foreign minister, Ricardo Patino. In this interview with Al Jazeera he explains why his embassy granted Julian Assange asylum. He also mentions how talks broke down after threats were made to the wellbeing of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and he answered questions on why Ecuador had stopped the privately-owned media outlets from spreading lies. I just wish somebody could do something in the UK where the problem is undoubtedly worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUo56xAbTQ0&feature=g-all-u

Well wishes for tomorrow in your aiding and abetting Julien Assange. You have spoilt the game for mi5 though, telling them beforehand. They just love the chase.

No, Mrs. Romney, hard is not having enough money to feed your kids.
Hard is working 80 hours per week and still not making it.
Hard is watching your wife suffer with cancer, and not having access to good medical care.
Hard is going to bed every night wondering if you will be killed by a US drone.
Hard is being an 18 year-old boy with no front teeth – no dental care – and trying to get hired for a job.
Hard is missing your father’s funeral because your boss won’t give you the time off.
Hard is being a little kid working in a toxic farm field.
Hard is being in prison – tortured because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Hard is being Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, or Lynne Stewart.
Hard is living in a country that has no nuclear capability. Those are the ones on the list for US military intervention.
Hard is being stared at because you are homeless.
Hard is living in a country that is being occupied by US Military Force.
Hard is being an unarmed man assassinated in his own bedroom.
Hard is being the mother of the little boy who died from a tooth abscess because his Mom did not have money for a dentist.
Hard is knowing that no one in power is on your side.
Hard is always being on the wrong side of the desk.
Hard is knowing that things will never get better.

From What’s Hard
by Rosemarie Jackowski / September 26th, 2012
http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/09/hard-is/

This seems the best place to draw attention to the defence of whistleblowers in a Radio 4 programme by Margaret Heffernan at 20.45 on 26 Septemberin the Four Thoughts series [a pun that encourages me to look forward to Four Play].

Hi Arbed,

You said earlier;

Thank you for asking about the “specialty” issue. This is included in Section 58 of the 2003 Extradition Act (the legislation on which British extraditions under the EAW is based). Specialty does, as you point out, mean that someone can only be extradited for one crime, and therefore cannot be onward-extradited for something else entirely. All well and good.

This would avoid there being any backlash at all if Theresa May was to waive Section 58 specialty/consent to onward extradition, Sweden to US.

———————————————————————————

I agree with you that in the unlikely event of of JA being extradited it would likely be for criminal charges.

But does the presence of Section 58, the US Supreme Court’s Speciality Doctrine, and it’s declaration that “an accused shall not be arrested or tried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings”, not contradict your earlier bold assertion that JA would face additional charges after extradition resulting in the death penalty, and that his legal situation was exactly the same as Bradley Manning’s?

Hi CE (10.04pm)

Well, I guess it depends how you look at it. YVMV, but to me the key sentence was in your first post on the subject – “Although the speciality principle was not specifically enumerated in the treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that…”.

Supreme Courts can be very malleable beasts, particularly where points of law are not “specifically enumerated”. Indeed, our own Supreme Court’s decision in the Assange case showed marked elements of such flexibility, ruling as they did on an obscure clause of the Vienna Convention when neither prosecution or defence had rehearsed any argument on it at all during the hearing (or indeed in the three submissions the Court asked both sides for after that). And I think in some ways the US judiciary is even less independent of the executive than our own.

So, although I know you’ll likely disagree with me, my view:

They’ll find a way around it.

By the way, news just in. Have you seen this?

US calls Assange “enemy of state”:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/us-calls-assange-enemy-of-state-20120927-26m7s.html

CE 10.04pm

The other argument they could try was that “specialty” had ALREADY been waived – by the UK when giving its consent to the onward extradition from Sweden. See?

The US DoJ has had nigh on two years – no, gosh, almost exactly two years – since the Grand Jury was set up to work out how it’s going to play this one.

He’s an egotistical fool on the level of Judith Butler. And whereas Butler’s mostly just vain and stupid, Greenwald is truly a very nasty piece of work.

=====
CE you describe your pompous idiotic up your own fundament self admirably.

Carry on.

Julian Assange was speaking to the UN last night and carried by RT. The time given was 11.30 pm and was obviously GMT, not BST. He did appear at 12.30am but I could not stay up. I expect there will be You Tubes etc.

CE 26 Sep, 2012 – 1:50 pm

“Fleeing Sweden” is off, why bring it up again and again? He left Sweden weeks after Ny started her investigation and had the permission to do so. This is also part of the “agreed facts” – agreed with the Swedish prosecution. He left end of September because he had a long planned meeting with Spiegel journalists and Stefania Maurizi from Italian magazine Espresso who wrote repeatedly about it.
It can be argued and speculated why he didn’t go back to Sweden if you want.

Arbed, at the foot of the link (26 Sep 11.04p.m.) is a poll as to whether you agree that Julian Assange and Wikileaks should be labelled an “Enemy of the State”. I clicked No, of course, and the Nos clearly have it with an 89% majority against and 7% in favour. I guess most on here would click No.

The US military senior personnel and those who support them should be on trial for crimes against humanity.

This is why Assange sought sanctuary and outwitted the twats in two major western governments, three if you count his own.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imSw_UGE9iDtQ6E6tiMJOoIL-N1g?docId=CNG.0e5ff74bcd4af58496be9afeaa19de8b.1f1F

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has called on the United States to move from words to actions, and put an end to its persecution of WikiLeaks, its people and its sources. He made the statement during an address to a panel of UN delegates.
Addressing the representatives of the United Nations’ member countries, the WikiLeaks founder spoke of the difference between words and actions, praising US President Barack Obama for his words.

“We commend and agree with the words that peace can be achieved… But the time for words has run out. It is time for the US to cease its persecution of WikiLeaks, our people and our sources.”

http://rt.com/news/assange-addresses-un-human-rights-069/

http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-of-Julian-Assange.html

Some of us didn’t have to wait for Wikileaks to tell us about the Ben Ali regime and the support it had from the west. Not just the US either, why no mention of France Julian?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68bef0c2-232a-11e0-b6a3-00144feab49a.html#axzz27gF4akOs

I’m very concerned for Assange. I first read his speech and thought it was interesting. Then saw it on RT. His presentation was very inconfident and lacked projection. And what had he done to his tie? Did he forget to knot it?

His sequestration is taking an obvious toll on him. Not good.

This waiting game favours the Big Governments involved. The dice seems very loaded.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/09/26/declassified-documents-reveal-us-military-designated-assange-enemy-of-state/

Newly declassified documents have revealed that the US military designated WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an enemy of the state, who can be killed or detained without trial.

Actually no, they described the act of passing classified information to Wikileaks where it would be made public as communicating with the enemy. Wikileaks aren’t “the enemy”, “the enemy” are the bad guys who might read the stuff once it’s online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/wikileaks-investigation-enemy?newsfeed=true

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for ‘communicating with the enemy’

US military’s new legal theory threatens to convert unauthorized leaks into a capital offense. Who is the real ‘enemy’?

Glenn Greenwald
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/wikileaks-investigation-enemy

The net tightens.

And the UK’s posture that “there is nothing in UK law which recognises diplomatic asylum” / “we are under a legal obligation to extradite Assange” [to face QUESTIONING in a case where there is forensic evidence that one complainant has faked evidence to back her allegations] collapses:

http://rt.com/news/ecuador-uk-talks-assange-162/

No wonder the BBC and other UK mainstream outlets are flooded with the ‘story’ of Amnesty calls for Sweden to provide [basically worthless] guarantees against onward extradition.

Diversionary tactic? Whoops, our hogwash has been exposed – Quick! Get that spin mojo rolling…

Ooh, look…

Following on from that open letter to Anders Perklev regarding investigation of Marianne Ny’s abuse of prosecutorial guidelines in the Assange investigation, here’s chapter and verse of Swedish law under which she could be sentenced to six years for it:

http://proassange.blogspot.se/2012/09/swedish-prosecutor-should-be-convicted.html

As the Flashback commenter quoted at the bottom of this article states, it’s interesting that this is longer than the maximum term Assange could receive for ‘rape’. Quite right too.

My Wikileaks tapes Thing2Thing (T2T)arrived yesterday. From what I’ve seen up to now worth every penny with John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Christine Assange(40 participants in all) and of course footage of the dreadful war-crimes the United States and NATO countries have inflicted on the poor people of the Middle East.

http://thing2thing.com/?p=2693

The other thing is your small contribution is helping to fund one of the few firewalls against US and Israeli-funded expansionism. You know what you should do.

A sympathetic piece in yesterday’s the D Mail whose Sarah Oliver interviewed him at the embassy.

‘It’s like living in a space station’: Julian Assange speaks out about living in a one-room embassy refuge with a mattress on the floor and a blue lamp to mimic daylight

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210522/Its-like-living-space-station-Julian-Assange-speaks-living-room-embassy-refuge-mattress-floor-blue-lamp-mimic-daylight.html

Good that Harrods have banned the police from using their facilities.

Come on, if laws were enforced consistently W Hague, D Cameron, L Fox and P Hammond would be either awaiting trial for glorifying terrorism or already in orange jumpsuits on their way to Guantanamo for giving millions of quid to Al Qaeda.

In case readers simply dismissed the reference to Stieg Larsson thinking he was merely an author of detective novels, think again!

That was what he did for relaxation.

He worked since the late 1970s to protect equal rights and fight for democracy and freedom of speech.
He founded the Swedish Expo Foundation, similar to the British Searchlight Foundation, to fight racism and right-wing extremism, and lived under constant threat, taking many precautions.
Stieg was an expert in the area, and wrote a book of instructions on how journalists should respond to threats for the Swedish Union of Journalists.

It sounds just like the sort of manual Wikileaks could do with — if only it was translated.

“ÖVERLEVA DEADLINE – handbok för hotade journalister”
“Survive the Deadline” (no, that does not refer to the editor )

Full biography here:
http://librarykvpattom.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/stieg-larsson/

Have there been any new laws been passed in Sweden in the past two years concerning the revealing of state secrets, undermining democracy, information/internet “war”, or some such matter which could now silently await Julian Assange should he get there?

zzz

Well looking so far, a few plans for new laws in 2010 such as this one turn up in English:

2010-03-31 Russian Reveals Swedish Diplomat “Spy”
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=4020&artikel=3598851

….

The revelation also displays a surprising development in Swedish espionage history and legislation.

Swedish intelligence has asked the Swedish government to sharpen the anti-espionage laws here – claiming that the Swedish diplomat could not be prosecuted since he did not give any information threatening the military security of this Nordic nation.

They want the Swedish laws to be similar to those in NATO-neighbor Denmark or other countries – where the revelation of any secret information would be a violation – even if this was only political discussions between other diplomats.

But for the last three years, the Swedish government has only been thinking about making any changes – so apparently the Swedish diplomat is not yet an enemy of the state.

on topic regarding skipping bail, Vaughan Smith and other sureties made a statement refusing to be in contempt of the public by betraying Assange and regardless they were in no position to influence him. Does someone want to post the full text?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/oct/03/julian-assange-supporters-bail-money

The Judgment states that the full address of Vaughan Smith will be attached but it is not included in the pdf which is here:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf

Glenn Greenwald may be still waiting for a response from the paper to his article that: “The New Statesman must correct its error over Assange and extradition”. However, in the interests of objectivity, might not his article deserve a mention and link on Wikipedia to balance two links there to D.A. Green’s Legal Myths as well as another guardian reference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority

The visit of Vaughan Smith and five others to Assange prior to the sureties hearing was given some reasonable coverage in The Standard (in comparison to other lifestyle-pages articles smearing the women who support him). They also get the in-joke of the “Lada Gaga” label on the CD that was allegedly used to leak all the diplomatic cables etc.

Caroline Michel, Tracy Worcester, Tracy Somerset, Sarah Harrison and John Pilger are also mentioned or quoted.

The court of King Julian: Assange’s loyal supporters
2012-10-10 Joshi Herrmann
http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/the-court-of-king-julian-assanges-loyal-supporters-8205161.html

I found the text of Vaughan Smith’s address but the post with URL keeps being blocked. Why?

It turns out that the full text is posted at The Frontline Club.

Sureties Hearing 3 October 2012 – address by Vaughan Smith
http://www.frontlineclub.com/blogs/vaughan/2012/10/sureties-hearing-3-october-2012—address-by-vaughan-smith.html

Hello Jon,

has anything been tweaked recently? It was just the post above (1:19 am), so I’m ok now. I kept choping it down and getting blocked until I reduced it to the line at 8:07 pm, so I knew it wasn’t blocking me totally. Maybe reloading the page helped? Perhaps we should post the text here too?

I have been happily posting still here and in other threads on-topic from my backlog of reference material and new info, so I appreciate the opportunity to do so keeping them open. Sadly, once the topics fall off the front page links, the well informed posters are no longer here contributing to the discussion and interesting lines of enquiry I raise remain unanswered. Any ideas? I’m not one for provoking argument to get a response.

Hi Snap,

My approach would be to just follow the discussion forward as the current thread becomes ‘old’ and keep posting your treasures and queries into new threads, provided that they can be seen as ‘on topic-enough’. Many of Craig’s posts fit the bill, I think.

Jon,

I am by now used to posts being filtered for moderation, which is fine, and it now looks like 2 links are ok which is nice. I really mean the dreaded “Sorry, but your comment seems to be Spam and has been blocked.” message. It happened in the last hour again. I have been trying a bit more, reloading the page has helped, so I guess it keeps some time state to see that I have recently read the page first. Has that changed recently? I hope you are not sending all out the ip adresses of posters off to some external site to check blacklists and consequently violate our privacy.

Also, how would you prefer us to bring lingering spam to your attention? Is there some trigger word we can use? Do full #comment-nnn links help?

Hmmm…. Looks like I need to rephrase my other question on ideas…

Hello Arbed,

nice to see you here again. At least you are reading here. It would be nice to have updates on what you see on flashback etc. I see interesting new theories and wait for them to emerge into the daylight.

Am I to presume when I see an Arbed posting in comments on other sites it is most likely you? We seem to share an understanding, as you said once “I think we are basically in agreement on many, many issues”, however I have a different temperament and more scientific background, so our approaches may differ.

While I have made a few “off the cuff” contributions to new threads, I have other much deeper thoughts on articles that are like works in progress needing development and research and answers to questions or translations and helpful exchanges of ideas. When there is a lot of hostility or off-topic churn I cannot concentrate to post anyway.
Newer topics hardly cover the details in Sweden etc. I am more used to technical forums where posts are kept on topic and may continue or be revived after years.

Initially there was an inspiring collection of posters in the earlier threads such as yourself, Lastbluebell, Orb, Johan and others; however they are either not seeing these posts or not motivated to join in. I guess in part I was asking for ideas on how to encourage them and to get some answers to the questions I’d already raised.

greetings

A “true feminist” speaks out on United Nations Day about a country taken over by “troll feminism” , and says a whole lot more on rights and justice in Sweden and USA, the Assange case circus etc.

http://proassange.blogspot.se/2012/10/courage-swedish-lady-telling-like-it-is.html

(note: translated, but well readable. some out-links go via google translate)

Arbed,

was that a small compliment about my posts being “treasures”? Thanks!

(The above have been direct, non-rhetorical questions, by the way, so I welcome your answers or thoughts now I have explained my approach and what I was asking for ideas on).

Hi Snap,

Yes, it was a compliment. I do from time to time check back here to see if you’ve posted something new, and always read them with interest. You mentioned earlier that we seem to have very different approaches, and well, that’s a shame in some ways because I feel I’d have trouble in responding to your questions in the way you’d prefer – mainly due to time constraints, but not only that, I’m afraid. Your questions do require deep contemplation and a concentrated effort, or broad research that I don’t feel adequate to undertake. For instance, I did try to do the search of the Swedish Ombudsman site you linked to, using the keywords you suggested, and simply couldn’t get the search to return any results at all. Not understanding the Swedish language I was unable to analyse exactly what I was doing wrong. But I did at least try! I’m not ignoring you or your posted questions at all, I’m just not up to offering much that would be useful.

My style is rather more go-with-the-flow, trawling where I think likely sources of information will be, having a good think about the implications of what I find, adding it to what I already know, storing links, etc and spreading them where I think they can make a useful contribution to those who are working to see justice in the Assange case. For example, over on the “US gunning for Correa” thread, someone’s just shown up because they were interested in knowing more about George Galloway having some of the suppressed SMS texts between the women. As it was me who first spotted that Galloway had said that in his Goodnight with George Galloway Episode 5 podcast and mentioned it here in Craig’s blog, I supplied the link to the original video, which they’ve now picked up and re-posted in Flashback. I’m hoping that Flashback – detectives par excellence, the lot of ‘em – will be able to do something useful with this new ‘lead’.

Hello Arbed,

Well, that is much appreciated. I admire the way you tackle the trolls. Is that indeed you posting as “Arbed” in comments on other sites too?

Some more remarks or interaction from time to time would help me to concentrate and write about a number of topics I have had with you in mind for ages.

It is a pity everyone (myself included) is so guarded and cautious these days. How do I know anyone tried that Ombudsman search? I looked for a while on flashback but didn’t see anyone there take it up. Seeing the flasback’ers show up on the Correa thread here raised my hopes, and is one reason I was delayed in replying here. In my experience the search on jo.se returned nothing if I used more than 2 terms, or maybe there are other reasons like leading spaces or quote marks gumming it up. Did you get any results with one word terms like – Lambertz – ? I asked if I should provide the numbers but no one replied.

As it’s late and I’m again contemplating what to write to loosen things up and encourage some more dialogue, for now take this as a partial reply.

Hi Snap,

Yes, I’m Arbed on other sites too. My attempts at searching the jo.se site used only the two-word suggested searches you gave. Returned nothing. I didn’t try any one-word ones.

Hi Arbed,

I should have phrased that differently – trying other searches would help figure out what was happening; a starting point would be to see if any results are returned by some common (Swedish) word, then try one of those single names. This establishes if the database and web interface are working properly and play ok with your browser. You mentioned it being in Swedish, so I take it you were not trying that through some sort of google translation lens?
Maybe the database was down when you tried? Otherwise, as I said it was quite picky, maybe the diacritical marks got messed up…

I had checked they were still there at the time I posted, so please try a little more…

Arbed,

Another point to note is that one needs to be searching jo.se under the “JO Beslut” in Swedish to get the database of Swedish rulings, since the “In English” search page gets a different database that only contains a few English rulings.

Hello Arbed,

Perhaps what gives me writer’s block is that I’m pondering why you say it is a shame we have different approaches, so perhaps I can ask what your hopes are that make it a shame?

Also what way it is you think I would prefer responses to be made?
I think many of my recent questions have been aimed at Swedish readers, such as this JO one. However others might just be a single reference someone remembers for when something was said etc. Or just a comment – e.g. do you also like the way the article I mentioned above uses the term “troll feminism” (it is not just about the online world)? I find it an interesting conjunction of terms given the current media fashion to use the word “troll” (often misue), and as a meme it seems harder to dismiss than other such labels.

There are several concepts I have been needing to find similar terms of phrases for to describe certain social/human nature phenomena, so might that be something easier to ask you if it your sort of thing?

Hi Arbed,

do you feel like copying your response in the other thread over to here as otherwise it is tricky to respond, and perhaps discuss these other labels like troll feminism. It would be nice to continue here and keep this thread open too, as maybe more turns up on Assange vs UK/USA etc. sometime.

To be, or not to be (continued):
- that is the question

still on hold …

In the meantime, spare a thought or three for Bradley Manning as hearings on his treatment are underway. Contrast the lack of accountability for the recklessly negligent computer security provided – from the field operations admin all the way up including the usual contractor corporations such as SAIC etc. who designed, built and certified the systems and networks.