CIA Look to Swamp Correa

by craig on October 22, 2012 10:13 am in Uncategorized

About a month ago I asked a former colleague in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office what Hague saw as the endgame in the Julian Assange asylum standoff, and where the room for negotiation lay. My friend was dismissive – the policy was simply to wait for the Presidential election in Ecuador in February. The United States and allies were confident that Correa will lose, and my friend and I having both been senior diplomats for many years we understood what the United States would be doing to ensure that result. With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.

I have been struck by the naivety of those who ask why the United States could not simply request Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom. The answer is simple – the coalition government. Extradition agreements are government to government international treaties, and the decision on their implementation is ultimately political and governmental – that is why it was Teresa May and not a judge who took the final and very different political decisions on Babar Ahmad and Gary Mackinnon.

CIA supporters in the UK have argued vociferously that it would be impossible for Sweden to give Assange the assurance he would not be extradited to the United States, with which he would be prepared to return to Sweden to see off the rather pathetic attempted fit-up there. In fact, as extradition agreements are governmental not judicial instruments, it would be perfectly possible for the Swedish government to give that assurance. Those who argue otherwise, like Gavin Essler and Joan Smith here, are not being truthful – I suspect their very vehemence indicates that they know that.

Most Liberal Democrat MPs are happy to endorse the notion that Assange should be returned to Sweden to face sexual accusations. However even the repeatedly humiliated Lib Dem MPs would revolt at the idea that Assange should be sent to face life imprisonment in solitary confinement in the United States for the work of Wikileaks. That is why the United States has held off requesting extradition from the United Kingdom, to avoid the trouble this would cause Cameron. I am not speculating, there have been direct very senior diplomatic exchanges on this point between Washington and London.

There was confidence that the Correa problem would soon pass, but the State Department has since been shocked by the return of Hugo Chavez. Like Correa, senior US diplomats had convinced themselves – and convinced La Clinton – that Chavez was going to lose. The fury at Chavez’s return has led to a diktat that the same mistake must not be made in Ecuador.

CIA operations inside Ecuador are in any case much less disrupted than in Venezuela. I learn that the US budget, using mostly Pentagon funds, devoted to influencing the Ecuadorean election has, since the Venezuelan result, been almost tripled to US $87 million. This will find its way into opposition campaign coffers and be used to fund, bribe or blackmail media and officials. Expect a number of media scandals and corruption stings against Correa’s government in the next few weeks.

I do not have much background on Ecuadorean politics and I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are. Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties are decent and not in the hands of the USA. But I do know that the USA very much want Correa to lose, were very confident that he was going to lose, and now are not. From their point of view, the danger is that in upping the ante, their efforts will become so obvious they will backfire in a nationalist reaction. My US source however is adamant that the Obama adminstration will not actually use the funds to incite another military coup attempt against Correa. That has apparently been ruled out. Assange being expelled into the arms of the CIA by a newly installed military dictatorship might be a difficult sell even for our appalling mainstream media.

Tweet this post

311 Comments

  1. I’m leaving this thread now.
    .
    exit node

  2. Once again, Craig gets a “source” on something which nobody else ever seems to confirm.

    Given your unimaginably awful track record…

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-i-am-convinced-that-craig-murray-is.html

    … why should anyone believe a word you’re saying? Not a rhetorical question, I’m seriously asking: Why should anyone believe a word you’re saying?

  3. Oh, and beyond that, Karma can be a b* sometimes.

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_10_23/Ecuador-concerned-over-Assange-s-health/

    Wait, no, I’m sure this was part of a new CIA plot to get him out of the embassy, right? Maybe gamma rays being shot through the embassy from an orbital satellite, perhaps?

  4. Jose, thanks very much. Exciting stuff.

    Ben, that was four links from Jose, not just one ;)

    A Node, heh! :D

  5. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    23 Oct, 2012 - 6:19 pm

    Jon;

    Yeah i was being polite. Not sure why some of our Castilian friends post in their native tongue, when at least two, by my count, speak English

  6. Cuando los intereses personales o corporativos se ven amenazados por la razón la lógica y la honradez, surgen los adjetivos peyorativos, rápidamente tratan de ignorantes a los que opinan en contrario, por eso reitero, Que pena me da las _Abandonadas,… están tan llenos de sus orgullos, egoísmos y encerrados en su burbuja celestial, que los seres comunes y corrientes somos simples cortesanos ignorantes que no merecemos el beneficio de vivir como seres humanos racionales.
    Esto gracias a un hombre que se faja los pantalones como Correa, esta siendo posible en Ecuador, y no pueden hacerse los ciegos, con sus logros como la baja del desempleo, la nueva estructura educativa que se va construyendo donde todos tenemos las mimas oportunidades, la gran infraestructura vial que sirve para desarrollar toda actividad económica, incluso para que se movilicen los detractores, la acogida internacional de los presidentes de la región, el apoyo de parte de la mayoría del pueblo ecuatoriano, son cosas irrefutables, que no se pueden borrar o ocultar con insultos e insinuaciones maliciosas.
    El Ecuador seguirá apoyando este campo de época, para bien de la gran mayoría eso se llama si no entienden democracia.
    Nunca mas nos arrodillaremos al Imperio, que ha sido desenmascarado y como decimos aquí en mi país, a otro gallo con ese cuento”

    Daniel antes de insultar a los demás, debes empaparte de la realidad nacional Ecuatoriana y luego pronunciarte, el echo de no estar de acuerdo con algo, no es razón suficiente para juzgar a mi lindo Ecuador.

  7. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    23 Oct, 2012 - 7:35 pm

    I guess Marco, doesn’t….

  8. Ooh look, I think that Real Treat Craig promised us has turned up, as linked by the delightful Anonymouse above:

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-i-am-convinced-that-craig-murray-is.html

    A blog created especially for this particular post! (Check the previous posts sidebar). And what a very, very long (and very, very nasty to Craig) post it is. Ooh look, and it repeats verbatim some of Goran Rudling’s “gems”!

    Mostly though, it spends a great deal of time explaining how Anne Ardin never, ever meant to accuse Julian Assange of rape. My favourite bit:

    “To reiterate: Every last piece of testimony in the document is suggestive of AA only wanting to go along to support SW”

    – except, of course, for that teeny detail of Ardin handing in as evidence a “used” condom which she said Assange “tore deliberately” but which has no DNA on it. No, no, definitely not – no desire there at all to do anything other than support SW…

    Ah, but Anonymouse does attempt deal with the condom “issue”. Well, sort of. She is very keen to tell us that the forensics lab did find “something” on it – a small speck of mitochondrial DNA, so how can we possibly say that the forensics lab found that the condom hadn’t been used? Quite easily, Anonymouse dearest. We can say that because a used condom would have DNA from TWO people on it – and proper chromosonal DNA at that – and this one has a tiny speck of mDNA from only ONE person.

    I’ll not clutter up the thread taking apart the rest of Anonymouse’s claims (anyone so inclined can do so on the blog post itself – there’s a comments facility, but good luck in getting anything past moderation), with one exception. Anonymouse’s blog is very careful to avoid two things:

    1) the page from the forensic report where policeman Mats Gehlin’s notes indicate that Sophie Wilen’s FIRST story to Linda Wassgren included mention of “popping balloon sounds” and retrieving a damaged condom from under her bed. Which obviously throws a good deal of light on Ardin’s interjection in that same Wassgren interview – “I believe Sophie is telling the truth because the same thing happened to me” – which resulted in BOTH women’s stories initially being treated as rape. (Sophie told a radically different story in her later formal interview with Irmeli Krans to avoid any potential prosecution for making false allegations. This then forced Anna – who had originally planned that SW be the one to make the allegations, while she just “supported” – to go into full damage control mode – in press interviews, via the #talkaboutit twitter campaign, etc, etc)

    2) all the text messages between the two women before they went to the police station in which they cooked all this up.

    George Galloway has stated he has some of those text messages in his possession, which is doubtless why he confidently told Oxford students protesting that he is a “rape apologist” last week: “One day you will apologise to me for that remark, when you know what I already know”, owtte. Craig is now getting the same treatment as Galloway (from much the same quarters), with added bonus nastiness in his case. I hope he too one day gets the apologies he deserves.

    The Flashback forum are already onto both 1) and 2) here, if anyone wants to follow the discussion there. Flashback is very good at ferreting out the truth.

    Oh, one last point I should mention. I have encountered Anonymouse before in other forums. She is a close personal friend of Anna Ardin, or at least moves in the same social circles. I reach this conclusion because I’ve seen Anonymouse refer to Ardin in comments as “the cute Anna Ardin”.

  9. I dont think we can protest Ben since they are the focus.

    Marco auto-Translates:

    When personal or corporate interests are threatened by the logic of reason and honesty, derogatory adjectives arise, quickly try saying ignorant to the contrary, so I reiterate, that gives me the _Abandonadas penalty, … are so full of their pride, selfishness and locked in their bubble heavenly beings are mere ordinary ignorant courtiers do not deserve the benefit of living as rational human beings.
    This thanks to a man’s pants and belt strap, this being possible in Ecuador, and can not turn a blind eye, with his achievements as the fall in unemployment, the new educational structure that is built where all have the opportunity Mimas, the great road infrastructure used to develop all economic activity to mobilize even the detractors, the international reception of the presidents of the region, supported by the majority of the Ecuadorian people are irrefutable things that can not be erased or hide malicious insults and insinuations.
    The Ecuador will continue to support this field of time, for the good of the majority that is called if they do not understand democracy.
    We will never kneel to the Empire, has been unmasked and as we say here in my country, a different story with the story ”

    Daniel before insulting others, you should soak the Ecuadorian national reality and then pronunciarte, echo not agree with something, it is not sufficient reason to judge my cute Ecuador.

  10. Utter nonsense. As an anti-Correa Ecuadorian, I can assure you that Correa will win re-election on the first round (he only needs 40 % and 10 % difference). Why would anyone (much less an “intelligence” agency) want to waste their good money on this? Furthermore, some of the main oil companies and companies in other sectors are U.S.-based. Correa’s mother and siblings have U.S. permanent residency. His cousin (Pedro Delgado, of COFIEC-Iran scandal fame) has a house in Miami and a green card as well. Correa has had the good sense of using the oil exports windfall on social programs and infrastructure, that will ensure his re-election for as long as he wants to remain in office (hopefully, only until 2017).

  11. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    23 Oct, 2012 - 8:01 pm

    thanks, crab.

    I’ve been telling myself, for years, I should learn Spanish. Mebbe the next life…

  12. Many of us don’t speak Spanish. Would you translate the piece?

    Which one? They are basically just reports (or translations) of Craig’s post. But I can translate some of the most interesting comments underneath:

    At ecuadorinmediato.com:

    Luis Valdivieso Vidal: All Ecuadorians who love this country must vote for Correa Feb. 17 and leave the US stranded.

    Williams Torres Verdugo: I’m an Ecuadorian who left the country 13 years ago, fed up and with the conviction never to return. I felt that politicians were a bunch of shameless thieves, and that the change we all dream of would never arrive. When Correa won, I thought he was just another shameless politician. A year into his presidency, I was told he was truly changing things, and I started to follow his work. I traveled to Ecuador and begun to believe in the change. Today I feel proud as an Ecuadorian of the president we have, and I dream of returning to my country. I’m working on that, and I’ll return with confidence that the dark and corrupt past will never return. The Ecuadorian dream is becoming a reality, and us Ecuadorians will not allow ourselves to be robbed of everything good that’s happening, and we won’t allow the shameless politicians from the past to come back, even if they are helped by the US, who are the worst terrorists and exploiters of the world… no more IMF or World Bank, who have caused a lot of damage in the Americans, and in some European countries.

    Belarmino Vasquez: Be alert Ecuadorians. Who could be the beneficiaries of these filthy and dirty CIA funds, used to discredit, slander and undermine the work of Correa and disallow his reelection? Could it be that dictocrat Lucio [Gutierrez] is behind this? Could it be the mass media, a well known lapdog and servile to the North-American empire? Why is it that Lucio [Gutierrez] in his desperation recently declared that “we either unite or we go under”? Be very alert fellow Ecuadorians!

    At eltelegrafo.com:

    Manuel Fuentes: The problem is that in Ecuador there are many vendepatrias [traitors who would sell their country for money]. There are many who worship Americans as if they were the greatest thing in the world! The US doesn’t like Correa because he doesn’t let himself be stomped on by Yankees, as any other vendepatria politician would!!! Correa doesn’t let himself be exploited by the Yankee imperialists! Chavez and Evo Morales have done the same thing. American hegemony over South America is ending.

    (That’s a fairly representative sample, not counting a couple comments skeptical of Craig’s claims.)

  13. @ MJ: 22 Oct, 2012 – 12:36 pm


    “Which of the South American country has no national army, and has no budget for national defence”
    Costa Rica”

    MJ: Technically speaking, CR is a Central American country (i.e. not South American).

  14. …los problemas políticos son nuestros y nosotros los vamos a resolver

    ( ..the political problems are ours, and we’re gonna sort them out.)

    Could do with a little of that in the UK, I think. But it sounds even better in Castellano.

  15. Luis,

    His cousin (Pedro Delgado, of COFIEC-Iran scandal fame) has a house in Miami and a green card as well.

    And Correa went to school in the US. So? One can easily be against empire, and still have connections to the US, and like many aspects of US society. Correa has given lectures at US schools after he became president, and he obviously respects US academia considerably.

    BTW, Pedro Delgado has a 3-bedroom house in Miami, bought 10 years ago with a mortgage, valued at less than the average such home in the area — and for this the media to this day is trying to pin corruption on him.

    Correa has had the good sense of using the oil exports windfall on social programs and infrastructure, that will ensure his re-election for as long as he wants to remain in office (hopefully, only until 2017).

    This is largely a myth. The latest data shows that 70% of state revenue is not from oil, but from taxes mostly. Correa has been very good at making tax collection more effective, and now Ecuador is pretty much up to international standards in this area.

  16. Mr. Murray greet the public broadcaster of Ecuador, we are doing a series of reports with various official statements on the disclosures made ​​in the financial website of the CIA to prevent Rafael Correa is reelected in the next election … We hereby request you to please help us with an interview via skype or telephone, we await your reply. A hug Maria Fernanda Suasnavas, Journalist Ecuadortv

  17. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    23 Oct, 2012 - 10:27 pm

    “That’s a fairly representative sample”

    Thanks Jose. I was starting to feel like a fellow hard-of-hearing in a room full of conversations.

  18. Maria I hope Craig gets your Ecuadortv interview request soon!

    .
    Ben it can be nice not understanding anything well enough to have disagreements though. que? ah.. claro.

  19. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    23 Oct, 2012 - 11:55 pm

    Crab;

    “Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis”

    –Seneca__

  20. Venga Ben… Bueno… Claro!
    ah no i have the internet and discover the complex ramifications of your expression. Pero no es nada manana.

  21. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    24 Oct, 2012 - 12:32 am

    Crab; I’m very morose over Clark’s departure. Levity later.

  22. Ben, thanks for your support for Clark, and I agree.

    Clark, will email you tomorrow, but this evening if you can, please get some rest. Ben’s right: this board wouldn’t be the same without you.

  23. He emailed a little, it sounds he got a bollocking from doctor who for breech of etiquette, which i attribute to the accidental mis-ip-ing of SB earlier.
    I am sorry i was not a sage contributer but a driver to recent disputes which were frustrating him/us. I think the disputes were proactive although harder for Clarks position than mine. I admit i was kind of happy he decided to give himself a break, but i am faithful he’ll return.
    I may better make more interval. – Slainte

  24. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    24 Oct, 2012 - 2:54 am

    Crab; thanks for that. I hope you are right about that. He seems to have been thinking of another path for some time, I think. He may be headed for a breakthrough, but I am speaking as one who can only know what I intuit.

  25. Ben Franklin (Anti-intellectual Colonial American Savage version)

    24 Oct, 2012 - 3:02 am

    G’nite, all.

  26. Craig, your statements & assumptions are all well and good, you have the right to speak your mind here in the free world of course. But what are your sources (I refer here to general labels, obviously a specific revelation would destroy your connections to those sources)? From my perspective, I read 50% of your comments that are opinion stated as fact, not based on facts cited (even from an unnamed source). Any good journalist will say, this source reports X. From that source, comes X news story. Not an op-ed piece that lots of people listen to, that’s not journalism, that’s just being popular. You say the State Dept was shocked about Chavez’s success, and that the Correa problem has not gone away. What is your proof that this is not simply opinion, or matter of perspective on the situation?

  27. Dear Craig,

    I had a look at the opinion polling for the Ecuadorian Presidency from the Spanish Wikipedia for the 2013 elections. Correa is head and shoulders above the rest. The lowest puts him at 38%. The average is 45%-50%, and the opposition is spread out among many candidates.

    I think Correa is safe. The CIA might be able to do some dirty tricks but I don’t see any evidence they have the power to truly subvert democracy in any meaningful capacity. (Well, short of military coups, but that’s a whole different ball game and as you yourself say, it has been ruled out).

  28. So Mr. Murray… You don’t have proofs but you still spread your nonsense? You don’t have any idea of the consequences this has for a democracy like Ecuador’s, threaten by Correa’s populism. I guess you don’t give a shit about the fact that this CIA nonsense has been taken as unquestionable by democracy enemies. Do you think that Correa’s rule is too democratic because of its -correct- approach to the Assange crisis? Now, democratic opposition to Correa -which also includes some left wing movements- will be accused of being CIA agents. Nice work, man. You better start studying basic latinamerican politics.

  29. Agree or not, I think this is a rather good article.

    http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1807

    “If we weren’t doing all this, you wouldn’t be sitting here in my office,” Escarrá, the parliamentarian, told me. “Venezuela isn’t mute anymore.”

  30. Ah, the delightful Arbed. So great to see you – now who, exactly, are you? Because you seem to think you know me, which is strange because I don’t know you. And I would never refer to AA as a sexually-suggestive term like “the cute [AA]”. Which is something you might have guessed from the fact that I took the time to censor all witness names. Oh, I’m sorry, or is the name “Anonymouse” unique on the internet?

    (I’ve also had one or two other people (also you?) on the comments of news sites claim they know me and use that same “cute” term.)

    “A blog created especially for this particular post!”

    Nah, that just happens to be the first post. I strongly suspect there will be others. ;)

    “And what a very, very long (and very, very nasty to Craig) post it is.”

    I’m sorry, I should have been all roses to someone who lies in order to smear alleged victims of sex crimes after mentioning their names in the press. I take it all back. Craig, you’re the bestest, goodest honestest rape-apologisty guy in the world!

    “Every last piece of testimony in the document is suggestive of AA only wanting to go along to support SW – except, of course, for that teeny detail of [AA] handing in as evidence a “used” condom which she said Assange “tore deliberately” but which has no DNA on it.”

    Which, as documented in the post, is *An Entirely False Statement On Your Part*. Which means your response simply reverts to the well-documented “Every last piece of testimony in the document is suggestive of AA only wanting to go along to support SW”.

    “She is very keen to tell us that the forensics lab did find “something” on it – a small speck of mitochondrial DNA”

    The “small speck” line is a pure fiction from your fantasy world. I posted the Swedish and a translation right there. It does NOT say “small speck”. It says that they found “något” on the condom. Need a dictionary? Here you go:

    http://folkets-lexikon.csc.kth.se/folkets/folkets.en.html#lookup&n%C3%A5got

    It says they found *something* on the condom and says nothing about the size. You are filling in the size with details from your fantasy world. The forensic examiner *specifically* states that it is *not* the amount of DNA that determines whether DNA can be seen by the test.

    You have been called on this. If you repeat it again, anywhere, I will feel more than justified in calling you a liar (deliberately repeating a known falsehood). Let’s be explicit: The Report Says Nothing About How Much Of Anything Was Found.

    “We can say that because a used condom would have DNA from TWO people on it – and proper chromosonal DNA at that – and this one has a tiny speck of mDNA from only ONE person.”

    The forensic examiner specifically states that it is not suspicious that they couldn’t isolate DNA. I’ve additionally chatted with someone who does DNA tests who also found it unsuspicious (he recognized immediately what test they did and was surprised they didn’t do the more sensitive test from the beginning). DNA is a very fragile molecule. In the right conditions, it can last many, many years. In poor conditions it can start breaking down in a matter of hours, and contamination can ruin even a fresh sample. Regardless of the quantity.

    To reiterate: the *Forensic Examiner* explicitly states that it is not suspicious. Wait a minute, what am I thinking. I’m dealing with Arbed, Super Forensics Man! Witness his amazing powers of knowing more than a professional forensic examiner without even having the sample on hand! Witness his amazing powers to fill in details that aren’t in the police report with his psychic abilities! GO JUSTICE LEAGUE!

    “there’s a comments facility, but good luck in getting anything past moderation”

    Right, because I have a long track record of… wait a minute, I have *no* track record of anything. So apparently in your mind, thinking an accused rapist should stand trial = “inherently blocking all contrary views”. Gotcha.

    “1) the page from the forensic report where policeman Mats Gehlin’s notes indicate that [SW]’s FIRST story to Linda Wassgren included mention of “popping balloon sounds” and retrieving a damaged condom from under her bed. … [SW] told a radically different story in her later formal interview with Irmeli Krans to avoid any potential prosecution for making false allegations. This then forced [AA] – who had originally planned that SW be the one to make the allegations, while she just “supported” – to go into full damage control mode – in press interviews, via the #talkaboutit twitter campaign, etc, etc)”

    Are you talking about this?

    “MÄ1 har inte märkt att någon kondom har gjorts sönder då det var mörkt i rummet och hon hörde att då misstänkt tog på sig kondomen var det en del ljud som om han drog i en ballong. Kondombiten hittades under sängen, under den del av sängen som misstänkt låg då han tog på sig kondomen.”

    Yeah, that’s so much more bloody likely than that he mistakenly typed a 1 instead of a 2 (there are scattered typos throughout the report because, believe it or not, police officers are human). No, it’s so much more likely that there’s a whole secret second story out there that nobody else took note of in the whole report, and then a giant conspiracy with the police and the alleged victims to cover it up! And that the prosecutor and two separate Swedish courts didn’t care.

    The anonymous interview with AA initiated by Aftonbladed (August 22, right?) actually damns your argument. Just ignoring the part where she refuses to go into details on the case, it states “The woman Aftonbladet spoke to yesterday was in her 30s and claims to have been subject to sexual assault, or molestation, but not rape.” and “The other woman wanted to report a rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her.” Oh, I’m sorry, Craig was saying that AA was crying rape, and you were defending him – please do continue, you two.

    But hey, lets take your latest conspiracy theory at face value! So, the plan when they went to the police was to have SW tell them about a broken condom and not AA, right? Gee, then how do you explain AA telling DB on the 19th that Assange destroyed the condom with her and not with SW? And that JW testifies in accordance with DB? And that PO testified that AA told her about it at the Crayfish party? LIES, ALL LIES, right? Everyone interviewed is a liar, I knew it! And all of the text messages being discussed in the interviews about the topic at hand which would back up or disprove their stories about what they were told and when, they’re all being suppressed by the police and the Swedish Supreme Court is complicit, right? Or maybe it’s the phone company that’s being controlled by the CIA here! Please, do go into more detail about how this all went down! Let me grab my tinfoil hat first.

    Because that makes so damned much more sense than someone accidentally typing a 1 instead of a 2, in a document with plenty of other typos.

    “2) all the text messages between the two women before they went to the police station in which they cooked all this up. George Galloway has stated he has some of those text messages in his possession”

    First, off, two things:

    1) If that was even true, that would be an even *more* massive breach of privacy on the part of Assange’s defense team than they’ve already done, and another great example of them being pure scumbags. YOU DON’T LEAK PERSONAL DATA ABOUT ALLEGED VICTIMS IN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, PERIOD. It’s bad enough that they leaked a police report containing not only details of their sex lives, families, workplaces, information that could be used to figure out where they live, and an alleged victim’s email address.

    2) Great way to defend a misogynistic liar by reference to the guy who’s now basically the figurehead for misogyny and rape apologism in the UK, who has an even longer track record of lying. Really, Galloway has “secret” texts which he won’t show us, which are apparently so damning, but apparently two separate Swedish courts didn’t give a damn about in passing judgment against Assange? *Really*? I guess the Swedish Supreme Court is also infiltrated by the CIA! Is every court in Sweden on the take of the CIA? And every court in the UK too, apparently? Amazing, they went through all this effort and yet never bothered to tell the prosecutor that Assange was leaving the country when they were planning to interview him, or that he was fleeing to the Ecuadorian embassy instead of appealing to the ECHR as expected. But of course, I guess that’s typical for CIA Director Groucho Marx these days.

    Amazing how Assange’s defense team didn’t see fit to use this “damning evidence” in any of their three UK cases to try to bolster their (failed) malicious prosecution case. Amazing how all of this “damning” evidence only ends up in the hands of people like Murray and Galloway who can never be bothered to back up their claims, and never with any sort of credible source. “Hey, I’ve got this juicy tidbit that shows that the whole thing against Assange is a CIA plot! But nobody in any of the world’s tens of millions of credible newspapers would be interested in that. No, let’s give it only to Craig Murray or George Galloway! And tell them that, whatever you do, don’t do anything to actually prove what I told you!” Because that makes so much more sense.

    I remember reading about this same sort of stuff with the “birthers” in the last election. All of the “secret” proof that Obama was a gay Kenyan muslim, and all of the idiots who believed it.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, criminal evidence is evaluated in a court of law.

  31. Anonymouse

    Please keep on posting. I fear you have become so absorbed in all this that you don’t realise that the more minute detail you give, the more incredible the allegations seem to any reasonable person.

  32. William Wallace,

    I have to love a debunking that doesn’t even try to debunk anything. Proof my bold assertion, my favorite.

    – Mouse

  33. ** Proof *by* bold assertion. :Þ

    I shuold porofraed bet.r

  34. When I get an hour or two I’ll take a look at your Craig Murray is a liar link. One thing though before I read it I think I can see where you are coming from.

    And I would never refer to AA as a sexually-suggestive term like “the cute [AA]“.

    To any reasonable person Arbed’s use of the word ‘cute’ has no sexual connotations whatsoever. He quite obviously means cute in the sense of smart, or evasive, or sly. Are you trying to get Arbed tainted with the ‘sexual impropriety’ brush too?

  35. Also, Anonymouse, (or is it Mr Goring?) it was referring to someone who knows Anna Ardin which is why it was in quotes.

  36. Miguel,

    So Mr. Murray… You don’t have proofs but you still spread your nonsense? You don’t have any idea of the consequences this has for a democracy like Ecuador’s, threaten by Correa’s populism.

    Are you saying that if Craig Murray comes across some secret knowledge of public interest through his friends in government, he should just shut up about it? I don’t think you understand what democracy is.

    I can understand skepticism of Craig’s claims. The sources are anonymous. But let’s apply Occam’s Razor: He probably does have friends in government, which is why he can’t just make stuff up.

    BTW, did Ecuador have democracy before Correa? Was that when, for about a decade, Ecuadorians got fed up with every new president after about a year or two, and threw them out? I guess the part where we threw them out was democracy, but not the rest. See, if you have leaders that largely represent the interests of the elites, and not the people by and large, that’s the opposite of democracy.

  37. Sorry Göran Rudling for condensing your name to Göring. That’s not fair! However I’ve signed your long blog posting for you. And this time the captcha worked. So you have developed three personae to keep your one-person debate going, that of yourself, that of Já Þýðir Já (whatever that means) and Anonymouse. Well done! I notice that my comment is the only one on your latest blog. Perhaps you can create a few more personae and post a few comments to maintain interest. However, in this busy age, might I suggest shortening your blogs. There never was a case of rape to answer. Mr Craig Murray is not a liar. Only Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrom are pursuing these outlandish claims, presumably because they have most to gain.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8wrmtDkoLU

    WHich makes me ask a question others have asked before. Who’s paying you? By the way your new blog is no more convincing than your old blog.

  38. Thought the real Göran Rudling gave a witness statement to the police criticising the legal basis for the charges.Is there another Göran Rudling? Or are we seeing Irmeli Kranz here? Either way it’s a single-issue, single entry blog containing enough errors to disqualify it completely from further interest.

    The famous condom – no DNA found = not evidence (whether due to Forensic’s incompetence or due to it being brand new) Throw it away. Irrelevant now.

  39. John, Komodo: Your obsession with conspiracies is endearing. First I’m some random person you’ve been debating before, then Göran then Irmeli… I guess I’ll be Obama next, or maybe Hague? Hmm, John, where do you get time to post so many comments here – who’s paying you? ;)

    “So you have developed three personae to keep your one-person debate going, that of yourself, that of Já Þýðir Já (whatever that means) and Anonymouse.”

    Too bad nobody’s invented some sort of web tool that one can use to translate languages that they don’t understand. Someone like Google! Some sort of “Google Translate” program. But I guess that’s too far fetched.

    As a side note, I imagine Göran will be quite amused whenever he comes back to discover that he’s suddenly been secretly cloned. And that his clone disagrees with him about the condoms. Dang cloning machines, they never work right.

    “Either way it’s a single-issue, single entry blog containing enough errors to disqualify it completely from further interest.”

    Good to hear that saying “It’s wrong but I’m not going to say why and I’m going to pretend it just doesn’t exist” works. I hear that when you want to ignore complete rebutals of your arguments, it also helps to plug your ears and shout, “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!!!”

  40. No, my sweet little feminist, it’s because I can’t be arsed going through the random observations you have put up and exhaustively fact-checking every one. Unlike you, darling, I have a life.

  41. …but as you haven’t, pick the bones out of this. Rudling doesn’t like Assange. ( I accept – pity Swedes are often such humourless trolls, but that’s life – that Rudling is critical of the Assangeists’ misinterpretation – as he sees it – of Swedish procedures) But equally, he recognises that Ardin’s evidence is fatally flawed.

    http://www.fsilaw.com/cms/documents/WitnessStatementofGoranRudling.pdf

    Have a nice snark.

    Sweetheart.

  42. Komodo, you old dragon, getting your teeth into that nice little Anonymouse Göran (Já Þýðir Já). Poor thing!

  43. She’s nice really, John. Just not very interesting.

  44. Wow, Komodo, great way to debunk everything I’ve written debunking Murray (I’m sorry, “Braveheart”) without even attempting to counter a single thing I’ve written! Do you have a name for this fascinating new technique? Inquiring minds want to know! Is it the “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!!!” debate technique? Or did you think that there’s actually something in there that counters a single thing that I wrote? Or are you busy trying to counter an argument that I *wasn’t* making? (hint: the name for that is a “straw man”).

    Clearly you’ve now accepted that I’m not Göran. But please go ahead and inform me of my “true identity”, because these conspiracies are always endearing.

    To sum up for those just joining us: I wrote a post showing Craig’s history of literally just making stuff up to try to spread conspiracy theories and ask why he should be trusted. Rather than actually attempting to debunk it, the conversation has largely focused around accusing me of being different people and simply saying “you’re wrong!” without substantive replies except for one (from Arbed), which only was about a small fraction of it and which was thoroughly rebutted (see above).

  45. Didn’t read it, but I can guess. Made-up facts and loadsasnark.

    For you, petal –
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/24/new-statesman-error-assange-swedish-extradition

    Better tell Prof. Heller he’s wrong, then. Sweden can’t extradite, yeah?

  46. Thanks for the Glenn Greenwald link Komodo. I thought it was going to be as long as the mouse’s tale but it did make sense. So can I spell it out for those without the time to read it.

    Swedish law courts cannot decide to extradite anybody (including Julian Assange). The decision rests with the government. Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrom just have to get Assange to Sweden then their job is done. At that point the Swedish toads, who suck on the nipples of the Big Bad Witch of the West will do the rest. So please. There never was, is, or shall be, a case of rape against Assange. Sofia Wilen did not want to make a statement. Marianne Ny is up for retirement and the Yanks will make it worth her while and that of Claes Borgstrom. This cartoon tells it how it is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8wrmtDkoLU

    Watch it Micky Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Anonymouse, Die Fledermaus, летучая мышь, and all you other batty mice who cannot see the corn for the stalks.

  47. Oh, Komodo and John, are you really that far behind the news? Sorry, but Glenn’s post has already been responded to:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/media/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

    August, really? Keep up the pace here!

    “There never was, is, or shall be, a case of rape against Assange. ”

    Interesting! Watch for the stars (***)

    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/jud-aut-sweden-v-assange-judgment.pdf


    4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

    ***The framework list is ticked for “Rape”.*** This is a reference to an allegation 4. The other three allegations are described in box (e) II using the same wording as set out above.

    Theeen….


    Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange ***is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings*** and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/The-Assange-Matter/The-Assange-Matter/

    Marianne Ny, Director of Public Prosecution, takes a decision to resume the preliminary investigation concerning the suspected ***rape***. The preliminary investigation on sexual molestation is expanded to cover all the events in the crime reports.

    Theeen….


    18 November 2010
    Marianne Ny orders the arrest of Julian Assange, with probable cause, suspected of ***rape***, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion.

    Theeen….


    24 November 2010
    Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of ***rape*** (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.

    Theeen….


    2 December 2010
    The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. ***The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands***.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Julian-Assange-has-been-detained-in-his-absence/

    Julian Assange has been detained in his absence suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/News-1/

    – I request the District Court of Stockholm to detain Mr. Assange in his absence, suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Aaaaand….

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/News-11/

    At the hearing on the detention issue, the District Court decided to detain Mr Assange in his absence, on probable cause suspected of ***rape***, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.

    Nope, clearly no rape case here! Clearly this is about jay walking.

    “Sofia Wilen did not want to make a statement”

    If you believe that, then address my rebuttal of this in my blog post. Or do you wish to hold forward with your “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!” argument?

    In case you lost the URL:

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-i-am-convinced-that-craig-murray-is.html

  48. Here, I’ll make it even easier for you. Here’s the relevant section:

    Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. [SW] refuses to sign it.

    Do you think your readers are stupid, Craig, that they can’t read the protocol for themselves?


    In the course of the interview, [SW] and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, [SW] had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which I made the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview. But [SW] did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to [SW] nor read by her for approval; but [SW] was informed that she could do so at a later date.

    Is that what you call “refusal to sign”? It says nothing of the sort. First off, the standard – which is not even required – is “read and approved”. Secondly, the *officer* decided to terminate the interview. SW never objected to any content. Third, it would be quite difficult to “sign” a report which hadn’t even been typed up yet.

    Oh, well, I’m sure that SW didn’t want to cooperate further, right? Like it’s not like she’d hire an attorney to push the case forward for her, or that she then consented to a forensic medical report, or anything like that, right? Oh wait, yes she did:

    [SW] gives her consent to the acquisition of a forensic medical report.

    and…

    [SW] wishes to be represented by an attorney whom she will name at a later time.

    The women have a legal defender, and his name is Claes Borgström, and he ended up representing both women. He is the man who got the case re-opened (more on that later) and who has relentlessly pushed forward the case ever since. Or are we to assume that the women don’t know what their own representative is doing? Poor damsels!

  49. Swedish law courts cannot decide to extradite anybody (including Julian Assange). The decision rests with the government.

    Like in most countries, I believe the judiciary can either block an extradition or give a “go ahead”, with the government being able to veto. It’s that way in Ecuador as well. In the UK, the Pinochet extradition was blocked by the Home Secretary after the judiciary ruled to extradite. I believe the McKinnon case also worked out that way. But I don’t think the government can extradite without a court decision, if the country has a concept of due process. Of course, governments can always violate their own laws and international conventions, as was the case when Sweden rendered 2 suspects to the US. Cambodia worked around these hurdles by deporting Gottfrid Svartholm Warg to Sweden instead of extraditing him.

  50. @Jose: Correct, as documented in the response link to that Greenwald article posted above. The government of Sweden can block it (but only after the courts take up the request), the courts can block it, the UK government can block it, the UK courts can block it, and the ECHR can block it. All five entities are banned from deportation where there’s a risk of death penalty or abuse (abuse even goes so far as to require a pledge of no supermax prison these days). Sweden is additionally banned from extradition for intelligence and military crimes (the very foreign minister Assange rails against now was prime minister when Sweden refused to hand over CIA defector Edward Lee Howard). And the ECHR exists solely to prevent abuse, political prosecutions, and things of that nature. A court that’s often accused of stepping over its authority – they’ve gone so far as to declare it illegal to ban convicted felons from voting or to prevent prisoners from receiving state reproductive healthcare assistance (artificial insemination and the like). Heck, even the UK side, probably the easiest sides to get him from, just blocked the extradition of probably the foremost hacker of US military systems (who the US desparately wanted) on the ground that he “has aspergers” (as though Assange doesn’t?).

    The concept that *all five* would approve an extradition of Assange is so far into fantasyland that parents in Narnia could use it as a bedtime story for their children.

    A couple more specific points on your post:

    Sweden did not render two suspects to the US. There were to asylum-seeking refugees (aka, people with no legal right to be *in* the country, versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country). They were falsely reported to be convicted terrorists. They were handed over to the US, but not to take to the US – to take to Egypt, back to where they fled from. They were abused in Egyptian custody. When all the details came out, it created a big scandal in Sweden; the two were given residence status in Sweden and a large financial compensation package. A certain leaking website whose name begins with “W” that you might have heard of leaked news that in 2006 that Sweden discontinued all cooperation with America. Not just discontinued, but literally had their military board a US plane to stop them, creating a diplomatic scandal:

    http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military

    No country is perfect. However, the case of the two Egyptians was *11 years ago* and was the biggest legal scandal in Swedish history for at least the past couple decades. Now think of how often those sort of abuses happen in other countries – the US, Russia, even the UK. Heck, even Ecuador, until the Assange issue rose its head, was preparing to deport a whistleblower back to Belarus where he’d most likely be tortured.

    Sweden’s judicial system is ranked #1 in the world in terms of fundamental rights by the World Justice Project in their scientifically peer-reviewed and published ranking system, making use of at least 17 legal experts on different parts of the Swedish system alone. Sweden’s weakest category? “Effective criminal justice (#7), aka, they let people off too easily.

    http://worldjusticeproject.org/country/sweden

  51. Jose, (3.13 pm) I largely agree with that. Perhaps I should have said the ‘final decision’ rests with the government.

    Eponymouse Göran,

    David Allen Green’s response to Glenn Greenwald does not refute what Greenwald said. Legal jiggery-pokery can be blended to suit a point of view and it is a minefield. Green did not have the good grace to apologise for misleading the readership of a once reputable weekly to which I used to subscribe. But for a long time it has been the darling of the neocon right. David Allen Green went to the same university as me. He does not respond to uncomfortable tweets. I can tell you that from personal experience. So it stands to reason he would not apologise. He is like Marianne Ny who has said she would still pursue a charge of rape against Assange even if she was shown to be wrong. What kind of a person is that?

    You should have read the article by Green and Greenwald’s before posting the link. Green, who quotes himself first from his previous article, then calls to his defence two Swedish legal scholars: Mark Klamberg and Pål Wrange. Wrange’s view can be discounted because he just refers to Klamberg’s blog. Green writes:

    “Klamberg’s view is:

    …if there is an extradition treaty the Government is bound by an international obligation to extradite and it is only for legally sound reasons that it may refuse. An extradition treaty limits in a considerable way the discretion of the Government to deviate from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”

    Well this is also what Greenwald said if you read his article, which you clearly haven’t. He quotes Klamberg’s expertise too. He concludes:

    “Speaking for myself, I have always said the same thing about those allegations in Sweden from the moment they emerged: they are serious and deserve legal resolution. It is not Assange or his supporters preventing that resolution, but the Swedish and British governments, which are strangely refusing even to negotiate as to how Assange’s rights against unjust extradition and political persecution can be safeguarded along with the rights of the complainants to have their allegations addressed. Green’s false claim that the Swedish government is unable to act because it has no final authority over extradition has seriously distorted this issue, and it is why it should be promptly and prominently corrected by the New Statesman.”

    That’s the crux of the matter.

  52. Why I am convinced Já Þýðir Já and Göran Rudling are one and the same. First of all, as Arbed has pointed out, great chunks of text on the Já Þýðir Já blog are the same as Göran’s. Secondly, there is only this one post (which I signed for him) even though the blog was started in 2005.

    http://nafnlausar.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=1

    Thirdly there was the apparently intercepted email from Göran threatening to expose Craig Murray as a liar.

  53. I have not read all comments, so sorry if I am a tad off beat.

    The USA is terrorising Julian Assange and Wikileaks with the specific purpose of ensuring that what Assange and Wikileaks does, stops and that no one else will take up the banner to continue this form of media.

    The USA needs to ensure that the American public, the Western World and other countries are unaware of their terrorist acts of war, rape and pillage of other countries, governments, corporations, and individuals, and to do this they need to maintain control of the media. Wikileaks and Julian Assange represent a threat, especially given the current, very precarious nature of the USA’s financial and economic status – caused essentially by gross corporate and elitist greed.

    The USA are losing world currency status which means that it will have to actually manage its financial affairs because they would not be able to simply print money and have the rest of the world pay for their extravagance. Additionally, because they had world currency status the USA tended to rely totally on the financial sector and cut back on all really productivity (manufacturing). This means that when they lose world currency status, ordinary tax paying Americans will be screwed and the country will go down hard. The wealthy elite (whose greed, corruption, massive government interference and gross mismanagement has caused the problems now faced by the USA), are desperate and ruthless in their endeavours to bring down any government or country that tries to trade in non US dollars and/or has those things it needs, such as oil, gas, gold, passageways, trade routes, etc (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Syria and always Iran).

    So yes, Julian Assange and Wikileaks, are the perfect scrape goats of the wealthy elite, to divert attentions away from the real blame and a vendetta against them fits will into the parcel of a corporatocracy gone mad, that is the USA.

    It is my opinion, that the USA is desperate and therefore exceedingly dangerous. Remember, the USA may lose financial control of the world but it still controls more weapons than all other countries combined.

  54. Hello Komodo, John Goss and others;

    since you are now discussing Glen Greenwald vs D.A. Green, and earlier the balance of Wikipedia had been raised, you may like to see my earlier observation on the bias by omission in a Wikipedia page [GG: 0 to DAG: 2+1].

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/aiding-and-abetting/#comment-372654

  55. Hello Snap. I agree. Both Green’s articles are cited but not Greenwald’s.

    You can edit Wikipedia entries. I tried once but was not very successful.

  56. @Anonymouse,

    Sweden did not render two suspects to the US. There were to asylum-seeking refugees (aka, people with no legal right to be *in* the country, versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country).

    I don’t buy that interpretation. Side-stepping due process in order to hand over suspects to a country that might persecute them is wrong regardless of migratory status. When people are requesting asylum, particularly, they should be given the benefit of the doubt while the application is being considered. If the application is declined, they can be deported to their country of origin, but not pseudo-extradited to any country they please.

    Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.

    Another thing that is worrisome about Sweden is its “temporary surrender” treaty with the US.

    Now, one can quibble about how likely it would be for Sweden and the UK to do this or that, how independent their judiciaries are, come up with all sorts of interpretations of existing law, etc. But the fact remains: Sweden has not provided formal assurances of anything, nor have they been very forthcoming about what they’d be able to guarantee. Who’d be willing to bet their life on these uncertainties?

  57. Why I am convinced Göran Rudling and Anonymouse are the same person. First there is a gut feeling and I trust my gut feelings. Secondly, when I baited him with the link between the three personae and who was paying him he came back at me asking how I got the time to write so many posts. He also asked who was paying me. Up to then I had written only three comments on this post. What convinces me most of all, which probably relates to the gut feeling, is the length of some of Anonymouse’s comments and the use of certain terms like “don’t know” and “don’t understand” generally applied superciliously to others who leave comments.

    Then of course Göran Rudling has not been commenting on this subject so close to his heart. Is it unreasonable to ask why not?

    I think Göran has a quaint sense of humour and can be very entertaining. Even these two extra guises of his have been entertaining. Of course there is a slim chance I am wrong. So I ask you to come clean Mr Rudling. Just out of honesty. That’s what justice should be about.

  58. Craig Murray wrote “With Correa replaced by a pro-USA President, Assange’s asylum will be withdrawn, the Metropolitan Police invited in to the Embassy of Ecuador to remove him, and Assange sent immediately to Sweden from where he could be extradited to the United States to face charges of espionage and aiding terrorism.”

    It looks like this is already underway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXk673BPBdc&feature=g-all-u

    Never underestimate the powers of the CIA. They tried to destabilise Angola and Nicaragua, and succeeded in pushing back female education in Afghanistan thirty years.

  59. Nothing new, we all know that the US NED (US National Endowment for Democracy) is used to finance struggles and terrorism against leftist governments.

  60. @John Goss 8.31pm

    Thanks for the link. If you want to read more on that $1.8 billion the US tribunal is trying to slap on Ecuador, this ruling makes the machinations of the UK courts in the Assange case almost look like fair play:

    http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2012/10/tribunal-slams-ecuador-with-largest-investor-state-penalty-ever.html

    Truly horrifying. Ecuador has already announced it won’t be paying.

  61. @Arbed: Yep. To put it in perspective, that (criminal) $1.8 billion award is about the same as Ecuador’s annual education budget. It’s comparable to the cost of Ecuador’s single largest infrastructure project.

    @Santiago: Now that you mention it, the NED is one of the most consistent contributors of Fundamedios, a media NGO that was created shortly after Correa assumed power, and that is always accusing the government (based on grains of truth) about attacks on freedom of the press, and is no doubt the local NGO that serves as a source to international NGOs like Amnesty, CPJ and Reporters Without Borders.

  62. Seguro que en Febrero 2013 se repite el triunfo de nuestro primer mandatario, porque no estamos ciegos para ignorar las obras y el pago de la deuda social.

  63. “Eponymouse Göran”

    Ooh, I’m back to being Göran’s defective-clone-who-disagrees-with-him again. Yeay! :)

    “David Allen Green’s response to Glenn Greenwald does not refute what Greenwald said. Legal jiggery-pokery can be blended to suit a point of view and it is a minefield.”

    Hey, great job disproving something by saying “it’s disproved”. I’m convinced.

    While you’re at it, could you make a bunch of gold appear in my house by saying “there is gold in your house”? I’d much appreciate it.

    “He is like Marianne Ny who has said she would still pursue a charge of rape against Assange even if she was shown to be wrong.”

    Your cite?

    “Wrange’s view can be discounted because he just refers to Klamberg’s blog.”

    Aww, that’s just precious. Because the Associate Professor of Public International Law at Stockholm University says that he agrees with another legal scholar, that means… he doesn’t count, and we should listen to someone who knows nothing of Swedish law instead? I think we can safely file this one under “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA!”.

    “Well this is also what Greenwald said if you read his article”

    Oh, so Klamberg agrees with Greenwald! That’s weird, he sure has a funny way of doing so when he says:


    The problem is that Greenwald earlier and later in the same text argues for a sequence that would put the Government before the Supreme Court. In essence he is arguing that the Government should have the first and the last say with the Supreme Court in the middle. That would make the Supreme Court redundant which is contrary to the sequence that is provided for in the Extradition Act which I have tried to describe. It may also violate the principle of separation of powers

    and


    I could stop at this point but I would like to add an additional reason why the Government can not grant an assurance for non-extradiction to the US

    and


    Or is Greenwald arguing that the Swedish Supreme Court should give an advisory opinion in advance of a non-existing request? There is no legal basis for such advisory opinions. The reversed sequence of processing a (non-existing) extradition request that Assange, Ecuador and Greenwald is asking for would be in conflict with the Extradition Act and possibly even with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Swedish constitution. My reasoning is similar to professor Ove Bring who has been interviewed by Dagens Nyheter.

    Uh oh – he’s in agreement with another Swedish legal scholar! That means by Crazy Troll Logic that we can ignore him now!

    (Here’s his quite devastating takedown of Greenwald: http://klamberg.blogspot.se/2012/08/sequencing-and-discretion-of-government.html )

    “Why I am convinced Já Þýðir Já and Göran Rudling are one and the same.”

    Oooh, this will be fun (you know, someone really ought to alert Göran to the fact that his evil clone is out here besmirching his good reputation ;) ).

    “First of all, as Arbed has pointed out, great chunks of text on the Já Þýðir Já blog are the same as Göran’s.”

    You mean “Postscript 2″ which reads, “To repost from deep in the comments section of Craig Murray’s blog, this from Göran Rudling”? Sneaky me, trying to work that in there without mentioning his name once, except for the fact that I did, directly before writing it, as a postscript, and set off within a blockquote. Sneaky, sneaky me! I’m so good at hiding my identity!

    “Secondly, there is only this one post (which I signed for him) even though the blog was started in 2005.”

    Have you checked out the other fascinating blog on the account, the original one?

    http://justcreatedfortheaccount.blogspot.com/

    I think there might be some sort of clue as to why the account was created in 2005. Just a tipoff there!

    “Thirdly there was the apparently intercepted email from Göran threatening to expose Craig Murray as a liar.”

    Wow, what a crazy notion, that more than one person would think that a person who has explicitly lied many times and been called on it makes them a liar. You got me! It is I, Evil-Göran-Clone #126! Part of the Evil Göran Plot to take over the world by calling liars on their lies and supporting the rule of law! My great nemesis John Goss: you may have won THIS battle, but the million year war for EVIL has just begun! Unmasking my identity this time will NOT stop our internet army from keeping you pitiful humans enslaved under the yoke of the CIA! Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail. Hail Carl Rove!

  64. “I don’t buy that interpretation. Side-stepping due process in order to hand over suspects to a country that might persecute them is wrong regardless of migratory status.”

    The default assumption of someone who is in the country illegally (whether for asylum or some other cause) is that they should be kicked out. The default assumption for someone in prison is that they should *not* be kicked out. Pretending that they’re one and the same is an absurdity

    Nobody is disputing that that one incident *11 years ago* which ultimately led to *Sweden’s military seizing a US aircraft and creating a diplomatic incident* shouldn’t have happened, in many regards. But to use a single incident from 11 years ago to say, “Ah, they’re all evil!” when that sort of nonsense happens orders of magnitude more commonly elsewhere is an absurdity. There are hundreds of thousands of legal cases annually in Sweden.

    “Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.”

    Which report? And if you cite a report for something, I want you to cite, say, Ecuador’s for contrast.

    “Another thing that is worrisome about Sweden is its “temporary surrender” treaty with the US.”

    There’s a lovely rebuttal of that canard here from attorney Greg Callus:

    http://gregcallus.tumblr.com/post/29939891330/assange-sweden-temporary-surrender-eaw

  65. “Why I am convinced Göran Rudling and Anonymouse are the same person.”

    Oooh, more of this! John, you’re the light of my days :)

    “First there is a gut feeling and I trust my gut feelings.”

    Which is why you support Murray’s explicitly and repeatedly proven lies without any serious attempt at rebuttal. Because we all know, truth lies in the gut! It comes from the bacteria there, like Heliobacter truthitus and Staphylococcus factimus. These bacteria pick up cognitive conspiratons radiated from the brains of CIA agents and use them to proliferate, triggering a hormonal response that allows for the divination of truth by special people like you.

    “Secondly, when I baited him with the link between the three personae and who was paying him he came back at me asking how I got the time to write so many posts. He also asked who was paying me. ”

    Mental note for the future: “Back Atcha!” now translates as “I’m An Evil Clone”.

    “is the length of some of Anonymouse’s comments and the use of certain terms like “don’t know” and “don’t understand””

    Oh, John, you have no idea know how much this one made me smile. Hey everyone, guess what? I WRITE WORDS! Like, “I don’t know you” and “languages that they don’t understand”. OH MY GOD, I HAD NO IDEA, I WAS WRITING WORDS!

    Let’s find some more secret Görans on this thread!

    Herbie: “Thing is we don’t know precisely what arrangements” – Secret Göran! Caught you!

    Thatcrab: “that is called if they do not understand democracy.” Oh, wait: “Ben it can be nice not understanding anything” – he’s a DOUBLE SECRET GÖRAN! OMG LOL WTF!!!

    _N: “I don’t know of any parallel.”: Your cover is blown!

    Komodo: “Didn’t know how much was available” – Yours too!

    Jose: “I don’t think you understand what democracy is.”, “don’t know what you’re talking about”: Another double Göran! BUSTED!

    Nuid: “Mary, I don’t know if you posted this earlier,” “something that does not know” and “people do not even know”: TRIPLE GÖRAN! CAUGHT YOU, CLONE!

    Craig Murray: “I really do not know what Correa’s chances of re-election are” and “Neither do I know if any of the opposition parties “: CAUGHT YOU CRAIG! I just knew it! This whole back and forth between you and Göran — all an act! You’re really sock puppets of each other!

    “Then of course Göran Rudling has not been commenting on this subject so close to his heart. Is it unreasonable to ask why not?”

    Too bad there’s no way to, you know, ask someone on the net something.

    “Of course there is a slim chance I am wrong.”

    No, no, please don’t give up! I want to make a collage of your best hits when this is all over. :)

  66. “Thanks for the link. If you want to read more on that $1.8 billion the US tribunal is trying to slap on Ecuador, this ruling makes the machinations of the UK courts in the Assange case almost look like fair play:”

    Because, as we all know, legal judgements never occur on their own, and the CIA runs all of the courts in the world.

    “Truly horrifying. Ecuador has already announced it won’t be paying.”

    And then when they get slapped with sanctions for not paying, you can say THAT’s all about Assange, too! What a wonderful way conspiracies work.

    “and is no doubt the local NGO that serves as a source to international NGOs like Amnesty, CPJ and Reporters Without Borders.”

    Oooh, so now Amnesty, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders get dragged into the conspiracy!

  67. @Anonymouse,

    “Sweden appears to have some issues in this area, as evidenced by the 2012 UN report on torture.”

    Which report? And if you cite a report for something, I want you to cite, say, Ecuador’s for contrast.

    I provided a link. It lists all countries that register incidents in 2012.

    And no, Ecuador (a country with far less resources, more poverty, less access to education than industrialized countries) does not appear in that report. Would that be relevant to whether Assange should be surrendered to Sweden, in any case?

  68. Anonymouse,

    The default assumption of someone who is in the country illegally (whether for asylum or some other cause) is that they should be kicked out.

    Given that Ecuador is on-topic, let me quote what the Ecuadorian constitution (translated) says on this issue (serves to illustrate the sort of progressive thinking that separates Correa’s movement from anything we’ve had in the past):

    The right to migrate of persons is recognized. No human being shall be identified or considered as illegal because of his/her migratory status.

    Persons requesting asylum or sanctuary shall not be penalized or prosecuted for having entered the country or for remaining in a situation of irregularity.

  69. Oooh, so now Amnesty, CPJ, and Reporters Without Borders get dragged into the conspiracy!

    No need for explicit conspiracies to explain how a system works. The NED doesn’t contribute to Fundamedios because it likes to throw its money around anywhere it pleases. If Fundamedios were aligned with Correa, they wouldn’t get a cent. If a right-wing candidate wins the next election, I’d bet Fundamedios ceases to exist. Now, Amnesty and CPJ don’t have offices in Ecuador. They get information from sources in the country, namely Fundamedios and other opposition groups.

    In addition to this dubious indirect funding of NGOs that otherwise are pretty good, a bias is apparent. It took Amnesty a while to say something about the possibility that Assange could be persecuted for his journalism. In contrast, they were quick to attack Ecuador with a special op-ed. Plus the way they report incidents is demonstrably biased. What I mean is that if incidents that occur in the US from time to time (e.g. the Anaheim shooting of Manuel Diaz, the arrest of Brandon Raub, the NATO5 prosecutions, the Sikh temple shooting) were to occur in Ecuador, Amnesty would quickly report them as murder by police, suppression of freedom of speech, criminalization of social protest, and social/ethnic cleansing.

  70. @Jose: Wait, that’s your “still has some issues” report? One paragraph which begins with “The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Sweden” and ends with “Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur is satisfied”?

    Since that is such a grossly incomplete report, let’s find a more thorough one. Amnesty International’s 2012 report, perhaps? Let’s sum up the complaints on each:

    Sweden:

    * Sweden does not yet have a specific ban on torture in its national penal code, relying on other statutes, European Law, and International law (Ed: Sweden is currently working to remedy this). They mention the one 11-year-old case.
    * Too many refugees and asylum seekers turned away, often due to categories instead of on a case-to-case basis, and mainly from Serbia.
    * Praise for Sweden for convicting a war criminal

    Ecuador:
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/ecuador/report-2012

    * Refusing to grant rights to the native Kichwa people over resource extraction on their own lands
    * Having the military invade a village to put down a protest from thousands of people who were going to lose their homes due to a dam; the military destroyed their land.
    * Indigenous people continue to face face spurious charges of sabotage, terrorism, murder and illegal obstruction of roads for alleged crimes. 12 examples are given, including terrorism charges against the president of the indigenous peoples federation.
    * Human rights defender murdered, no progress made on the case
    * Indigenous leader and former minister and now human rights defender imprisoned for slandering the government
    * “impunity in cases of killings and abuses by police, hired gunmen and rural juntas”
    * “criminal defamation charges against journalists critical of the government or local officials”. The El Universal case is brought up.

    Yeah, Ecuador sounds like a bloody freedom-loving paradise compared to Evil Sweden. Oh, and instead of quoting the constitution, try quoting the actual law on asylum procedures, because Ecuador deports people all the bloody time, and not to mention almost certainly would have deported Barankov back to be tortured in Belarus had the Assange case not come up. He had already lost the hearing on 21 june and spent months in jail, despite having been given that precious “asylum” status.

  71. First of all, Anonymouse, whatever you think you’ve found about Ecuador is irrelevant to the issues being discussed. It’s like saying that Chen Guangcheng should not have sought refuge at a US consulate, because of Amnesty’s and HRW’s reports on the US. Total nonsense.

    Now, while I think it’s totally ridiculous to try to compare a third-world country’s report with one of an industrialized country, that Amnesty report on Ecuador illustrates how Amnesty just doesn’t have a presence in Ecuador and how its reporting simply intends to paint the most negative picture possible in certain countries. I’ve been reading news reports about the dam evictions incident, as someone else brought it up in this thread. Unsurprisingly, there are multiple versions. The government needed to build a dam near the city of Chone, in order to prevent flooding. President Correa was adamant about this, as it was a project that benefited about 20,000 families. Does it seem likely that 1700 families would be affected by a dam? How big would it have to be? I’m not sure where Amnesty gets that number. The serious reports I’ve read talk about 80 to 150 families affected. The government expropriated those properties, which involves compensation according to a valuation. It’s not like the government just stole the land. Of course, there were still some families who were opposed — about 18 actively participating in protests. Eventually the only options were to cancel the project or evict the families, clearly. I don’t know if evictions were carried out in the most appropriate manner (apparently people did get injured) but I don’t see that anything illegal or unconstitutional was done at the state level in this case.

  72. Arbed 11.03 pm, 25 Oct. Truly disturbing. They are really after Correa. It stands to reason they would be truly after Assange too. And this made up rape affair would not be the only way.

    (Anonymouse 1.23 pm.) will really have his work cut out when he comes back posting as Göran Rudling. What you need to do is flatly deny that you are not one and the same person as I invited you to do in my previous post. I did not willy-nilly pluck words out of the air. I particularly chose the words “don’t know” and “don’t understand” because I had previously searched these phrases on former posts by Göran Rudling on the ‘Why I am convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar’ blog post. Figures:

    The only person to have used the phrase ‘don’t understand’ on this current post is Anonymouse and me repeating what Anonymouse wrote.

    Go to the ‘Why I am convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar’ post.

    All these comments are Göran Rudling’s. The emboldening is mine.

    p2
    18 Sep 2012 1.00 am. like most people you don’t understand anything
    18 Sep 2012 3.29 am. I just can’t believe you don’t understand
    p3
    20 Sep 2012 1.21 pm. … and tel me if there is anything you don’t understand
    p4
    22 Sep 2012 7.14 am. If you don’t understand the basics
    24 Sep 12.39 pm. I know you don’t understand the case
    and When you don’t understand something
    24 Sep 9.44 pm. Sorry I don’t understand your reasoning
    p 5
    6 Oct 4.39 pm. It seems that you don’t understand the High Court ruling.
    and That you don’t understand is evident.
    10 Oct 9.43 pm. You’ve been telling us for a while that you don’t understand

    On 24 Sep 2012 at 11.47 pm Göran Rudling wrote ‘John Goss, with a Sherlock Holmes brain, has no problem of understanding which text it is and roughly when it was sent.’

    There are currently 827 comments on the ‘Why I am convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar’ post. The only person to use the phrase don’t understand is Göran Rudling. So does what made Anonymouse smile so much now want to make him cry?

  73. John Goss, my friend, you don’t understand. Anonymouse is so desperately boring that she (judging by her image) could not possibly be Goran. At least Goran was entertaining and knew how to make a point. Please stop throwing any more cheese towards her.

  74. Villager, Göran, Anonymouse, Já Þýðir Já, Samtycke and whatever other epithets you choose to bestow upon yourself and your close allies, thank you for coming clean.

    Your approach is not new. Erasmus Darwin in the eighteenth century used to get his friends to (pseudonymously) write letters to the Gentleman’s Magazine to generate a debate. The trouble is, and I realise that there are different degrees of rape in Sweden, that Assange has been accused on a false premise, but his life and reputation are at stake here, while the Swedish prosecution service are trying to devise ways of getting him to the US via Sweden. It is as simple as that. I trust the family history account you gave regarding your mother and understand why you believe, as I believe, that real rapists should be punished. I ask you in all honesty why do you think Women Against Rape spoke out against these trumped up charges?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/23/women-against-rape-julian-assange

    They spoke out because they want justice for people like your mother. You need to decide where you really stand. If the decision is the right one, and I think you are basically a good man, then you can be my friend. But despite my cartoons the matter is not a flippant one. Another good man’s life and reputation are at stake.

  75. John Goss, now i really must question your powers of comprehension. Perhaps you should re-read my comment. In the morning when you are sober.

  76. “There’s a lovely rebuttal of that canard here from attorney Greg Callus”

    That’s interesting, and super-fast qualification as an attorney, because a little over a year ago Greg Callus was a lowly CIF moderator for the Guardian newspaper. Could have been moonlighting, I suppose.

    Worth checking the Justice For Assange website for his name too, US Extradition page. He’s cited on there for, I think, suggesting a possible way around the “temporary surrender” situation. Have his views done a complete three-sixty since then?

  77. I’m with Craig about Anonymouse – the more she/he posts here in such minute detail, the more preposterous the allegations against Assange and the Swedish judicial system look to a reasonable person.

    There’s something really offputting about someone who constantly resorts to a ridiculing tone, with dollops of smart-arsery on top, to win arguments. No one likes a smart arse.

  78. Because it arouses less suspicion on the ground – Germany is now the “Trojan Horse” of the U.S.-Brit-Vatican alliance to keep “control” over Latin America. Since years, Germany, whose foreign relations, and intelligence are essentially primarily “wired” to the U.S. and not really under the control of Germany’s government – has groomed since years Alberto Acosta, who now has been activated in Ecuador as candidate for a fake “real left”(pro NATO) to run against President Correa’s nationalist coalition in the Feb. 2013 election.

  79. The naivete of these writers is the best proof of why evil triumps. Wasting their time by giving superficial and ignorant opinions, sometimes seemingly informed and educated, but completly outside of the real world power situation. Chavez, Morales, Correa, and others who appear to be anti imperialistic “revolutionaries” enemies of the US, are nothing more than puppet agents, directed by the principal agent and brain, Fidel Castro of Cuba, in the service of the Council on Foreign Relations based in New York, the Trilateral Comission and the Bilderberger…the three main bodies constituting the real power of the New World Order government, to implement the plan laid out by the “Linowitz” US STATE doctrine, formalized in the early seventies, for the total, but gradual, domination of the countries of the Iberoamerican continent, from the Rio Bravo (Grande) to the Patagonia, by the destruction and elimination of private enterprise and property, and the coming into power of authoritarian govenments (disguised as “democracies” in the present first phase) through elections, legitimate or fraudulent (like the recent one in Venezuela)… governments that with socialized state capitalism would be entirely dependent on the support of the NWO US power for their survival.. There is more than enough proof of this conspiracy manipulated by the up to now occult world power which is suppressed by the controlled western impact media, but available to the few concious students of deep history that exists, beggining with professor Carroll Quigley’s magnum opus; “Tragedy and Hope”…. and Mexican historian’s Salvador Borrego’s: “Derrota Mundial” (World Defeat)…Unfortunatly very few people have even a slight suspicion of the monstrous reality, given the almost total control of the information channels by a few conglomerates owned by the elite conspirators and their use to disseminate lies an misinformation and promote the dumbing down of the general population, as shown in the comments of the naive, misinformed writers above…at this stage only a miracle can save Western European civilization, unfortunately accompanied by horrible violence and suffering, including a coming civil war in the US.

  80. Correa will win, every Ecuadorian know that, even the ones who will not vote for Correa.
    Unfortunately, there is NO decent candidate of the opposition.
    I , as an Ecuadorian, fear what will come if Correa stays….he claims change but I fear
    alienation and injustice.
    For example, thanks to this new revolution many people associated to his party has
    acquired jobs in Ministries. Take for example the Ministry of Foreign affairs, the diplomacy
    school has been closed and now entry to diplomacy has been open to less privileged
    minorities …. arguing that these positions should be also opened to these minorities.
    It would be nice if they will make this new rule clear and explained like Brazil does….but
    they are abruptly putting people by chance in this position…which will lead unfortunately to
    horrible consequences and shame to Ecuador in the future.

    I like Correa because he is brining hope like never before…but I hate the bad team he has
    and how chance is being undertaken in Ecuador….its like if they want to appear good now in
    the present taking the most abrupt and sometimes absurd decisions… claiming transparency
    but knowing this is not the truth.

  81. Hahaha, now I’m Villager also! Before long, half the blog is going to be me! :) WE ARE ANONYMOUSE OF BORG!

    “It is as simple as that. I trust the family history account you gave regarding your mother”

    I’ve said nothing of my family. Nor my own personal history in this regard for that matter.

    “I ask you in all honesty why do you think Women Against Rape spoke out against these trumped up charges?”

    The only reason you and all of the Assange rape-apologists have focused on this statement by *two people* from a group almost nobody had heard of before is because they said what you want to hear. So, for example, when RAINN, the largest anti-rape organization in the US and possibly the world, railed against Assange supporters who think what happened wasn’t rape and want Assange to be able to make excuses to get out of a trial:

    http://www.rainn.org/news-room/news/michael-moore-calls-rape-case-hooey

    Not a peep from you guys. I mean, could you get any more telling?

  82. Rainn’s statement was obviously made in December 2010, well before the leak of the police protocols in February 2011 showed there was no real evidence that Assange had committed any crime at all – as agreed by Eva Finne, the first prosecutor to look at the women’s allegations. Women Against Rape (the UK’s most established anti-rape organisation) had the benefit of additional information Rainn didn’t when WAR made their statement in support of Assange.

    From Rainn’s statement in that link:

    “The organizers plan to at least match Moore’s $20,000 donation, and hope to raise the total amount of Assange’s bail ($315,000).

    This issue with Moore has nothing to do with Julian Assange — like any alleged rapist, he deserves a fair trial. The problem is that Moore doesn’t believe the charges should even be investigated or go to trial. That’s a dangerous precedent that excuses perpetrators and further harms victims.”

    1) Did they manage to match it? They don’t say.

    2) How does throwing out false allegations of rape well before they reach a trial set “a dangerous precedent”? I would’ve thought the really dangerous precedent would be in insisting that police and prosecution services are never allowed to screen out obviously malicious false allegations, and in insisting on formal prosecution and trial every time no matter how obviously unjust that is.

    The stigma of false rape allegations never goes away and victims of it have had their lives destroyed by it. In the UK making false allegations of rape is treated as a very serious crime in itself. There have been one or two cases where the perpetrators of false allegations have been jailed for six years.

  83. Very good Arbed, but you forget that consensual sex equals rape in Sweden! Not a place as a young single man I would have wanted to spend a holiday.

    Anonymouse, perhaps you are not Villager. But you still have not categorically denied being Göran. In the introduction to Göran Rudling’s police statement he refers to his mother being a victim of rape which is why he has (you have) such a strong interest in rape law in Sweden. Göran further writes:

    ” . . .I am extremely concerned at any false allegations made by a person relating to sexual misconduct because it devalues genuine complaints and forces police to devote time and resources that could be used to catch real offenders”.

    This is pretty well what Women Against Rape were saying in the link I previously posted which Anonymouse tried to denigrate as being unrepresentative of the movement in general. So I ask him to show where Women Against Rape have retracted that Guardian article. As Arbed has pointed out “There have been one or two cases where the perpetrators of false allegations have been jailed for six years.” There have also been imprisonments for perverting the course of justice, which is what Anna Ardin tried to do when she deleted valuable information in the form of tweets that Göran passed on to Assange’s defence team. At that time he was singing from the same hymn-sheet as Women Against Rape.

    Now if Göran has changed his view, which comments on this blog show he has, he might also want to change his name to Anonymouse so he can comment in a totally adverse way to his original witness statement.

    So come on, flatly deny that Anonymouse and Göran are one and the same person.

  84. Hi.

    there are rumors that you have copies of the sms-traffic logs between the two girls that got Assange into trouble.
    As swedish Flashback to 95% has disclosed most of the hidden details to the world press, we kindly ask you to put these sms in public or post it on: https://www.flashback.org/t1275257p4156 so we can resolve if its genuine or bogus.

    regards from Sweden
    Duqu

  85. By the way, I forgot, be careful with mr Göran Rudling, he´s today a taxidriver that states that he knows more than the English Court, and thats wrong. He accessed all the removed twitters that was posted on Flashback, then mailed mrs Ardin about her action, then reported it to the police and got involved in the courtcase. He´s background is disturbing with a firm that got bankrupt 3 times, he was into golf before this happended, in the 70ths he was a salesman of high end hifi, and he claims that his hompage was started up due to what his mother experienced a long time ago, but his mother died in the 90ths,and he started up at the same time as Assange made his 1st visit to Sweden, so the majority of us here thinks he´s bogus with a hidden agenda. As an extra twist, the woman he lived togheter with in 2010 was the pressattache at swedish migration office- that denied Assange a permanent stay in Sweden.

  86. That’s really interesting Duqu, and thank you for the comments.

  87. Mr Hurtig, Julian Assanges second lawyer in Sweden about the textSMS:

    “From what I have read, it is clear that the women are lying and that they had an agenda when they went to the police, which had nothing to do with a crime having taken place,” Mr Hurtig said.

    “It was, I believe, more about jealousy and disappointment on their part. I can prove that at least one of them had very big expectations for something to happen with Julian.”

    Mr Hurtig said he had asked Swedish prosecutors for permission to disclose more “sensational information”.

    “If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade,” he said. “If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.

    “But at the moment I’m bound by the rules of the Swedish legal system, which say that the information can only be used as evidence in this country.

    “For me to do otherwise would lead to me being disbarred.”

    We also know he said the woman were speaking of earning money by going to the tabloid Expressen before going to the police, coincidentally the same newspaper that broke the story.

    So you see we are very intrested in the SMS and how they got into Mr Galloways possesion. We are sceptical by nature.

    Regards from Sweden, Flashbackthread https://www.flashback.org/t1275257
    Wtfuk

  88. Wtfuk, Duku and others. I am sure you are right about Mr Hurtig’s information. The whole case has been a charade of justice with no intention but to get Assange on Swedish soil to be delivered to Sweden’s great ally the USA.

    I’m sure too that the Flashback site, responsible for recovering the Anna Ardin deleted tweets, is great. I just wish I could understand Swedish.

  89. @ John Goss
    We handle English as well. Ask any questions. Welcome.

  90. Duku – 30/10/12 4.34pm

    Hi Duku – I’m not a member of Flashback or a Swedish speaker but I read it often (Google translate) and have appreciated your personal contributions there.

    As far as I know, no one here (commenters on Craig’s blog, I mean) has those SMS texts, but it was me who mentioned that British MP George Galloway claims to have some of them in his possession.

    A couple of months ago there was a huge rumpus in the British press about a Podcast that Galloway did defending Julian Assange and saying he was only guilty of “bad sexual etiquette”. Galloway has since been decried as a “rape apologist” by all and sundry and there was an attempt to ban him from speaking on UK university campuses by the National Union of Students. He’s suing. Now, at the time of the original media outcry the mainstream press only showed a 2-minute snippet of Galloway’s Podcast. This was disingenous in the extreme as the full Podcast makes clear he had a very strong basis for his remarks. Here’s the full Podcast:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg

    He mentions at around the 25-minute mark that – despite his remarks earlier in the broadcast when he said “even if the allegations are 100% true Assange is not guilty of rape, otherwise you bankrupt the term ‘rape’ of all meaning” – “I don’t believe these women’s stories at all, I think they’re lying and I’ve got texts between the women, and between the women and Assange, to back me up”

    Perhaps you could contact Galloway direct to ask him to copy Flashback what he has? If that’s not possible, post here again and perhaps one of the commenters to this blog can help?

  91. @ Arbed
    I post your entry into Flashbackthread and hope you dont mind.

  92. @ Wtfuk

    Absolutely no probs. You’re welcome.

  93. Hi again Duku and Wtfuk,

    You might like this video too. It’s George Galloway speaking at the Oxford Union just a few days ago. In this segment he talks about knowing specific things about the women which the audience and the general public do not yet know (but, he says, they will do in the not-too-distant future). One word of warning: Galloway talks about what he knows about Woman A, but do not automatically assume this to mean he’s referring to Anna Ardin. The earliest reports of the allegations over here in the UK back in (I think) September 2010 (a Daily Mail article) referred to Sophie Wilen as Woman A and Anna Ardin as Woman B.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaeW_A1K7SY&feature=relmfu

    It’s very clear he has access to specific factual information not yet in the public domain.

  94. Thank you Wtfuk, and Arbed again for the George Galloway Youtube link.

  95. I’ve just seen in Flashback that some people there are wondering “can it be true? Is it possible that George Galloway has copies of (parts of) SMS traffic between SW and AA?” and I want to reassure the Flashback forum that it IS indeed possible. I do not know where he will have sourced them from (though I think the UK security services, MI5, etc are unlikely candidates…) but it IS very likely he has what he says. Galloway is no bullshitter. He’s highly intelligent and really knows his stuff.

    I imagine his source (or the original source for his source) must somehow be from within the Swedish Prosecution Authority, as they’re the ones who’ve retained the text messages – only letting Hurtig view them briefly and not make copies – so the question is how the SMS, or some of them, could have gotten loose from there. You could try asking Hurtig if he managed to commit any of what he saw to memory and later transcribe them, but that doesn’t sound too likely. I think a more direct way to find out exactly what George Galloway has is to ask him:

    http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/george-galloway/25649

    Be aware that UK parliamentary rules forbid MPs from dealing with people’s cases unless that person lives in their own constituency. So you could find someone living in Bradford, UK, to ask your question perhaps. Or there might be ways of posing your question in broader terms, and not putting it in terms of a ‘case’ that you want the MP to take up. Sympathetic MPs do sometimes find clever ways to offer support in ways which don’t break the rules.

  96. Hi John Goss,

    I think Flashback agree with you about Goran Rudling adopting various aliases to spread his disinformation. Posted in Flashback today:

    “Columnist Lisa Magnusason writes in Metro today. Note that Metro is Sweden’s largest circulation newspaper:
    “… I was one of those who helped WikiLeaks edit out names from the U.S. secret documents so they could disseminate information about the war in Afghanistan without any innocent was hurt. On a few occasions I even brokered contact with the media for the organization. I disliked that WikiLeaks was gradually becoming synonymous with Julian Assange, for me, it was the essence of the organization as a cluster where everyone helped each other. Then came the rape allegations, which of course is all about Julian Assange as an individual, but treated as if he were a political prisoner, where he sits in his pathetic ecudorianska rättshaverist exile. WikiLeaksvännernas hatred towards those he is said to have raped is tremendous. Famous women like MIA, Lady Gaga and now Vivenne Westwood closes up – on Julian Assange’s side. They want to show their support, they say. Support for what, exactly? Julian Assange is not Wikileaks, he is his own. And nobody knows reasonably what happened except he and those he claimed to have gone on. The only ones who “show their support” shows is that they hate women, or that they sacrifice women at info-Jesus Assange altar because they are so in love with him, or that they do not care at all about women but want to pick up popularity points as that they can sell more CDs and clothes. Disgusting it is, regardless. .. ”

    As an example of the media climate in Sweden in terms of JA …

    http://www.metro.se/kolumner/det-kry…!ihMYzIi5Uypc/

    Damn, what fun it would be if Vivienne Westwood or Lady Gaga got to read this …

    They do not care, Sweden is a backwater and Lisa Magnusson is just another in the pile, actually believe that she is as mythomaniac as Rudling, who got the game again yesterday and threw shit at 2 to, well timed – Lisa Magnusson is yet another in crap throws flock. However, it appeared yesterday that Rudling made a fool of himself in the English chat rooms where members could prove that he had at least two different nick except his real name, his agenda is thus quite clear now.”

    With regard to this Lisa Magnusson, I think Flashback is right: she must be a mythomaniac (love that word…). No one, but no one, who was involved with Wikileaks’ production of the Afghan War Diaries would out themselves. Unless they want to end up in the US on espionage charges, that is!! It came out in the documents released by Wikileaks over the complaint they made to Ofcom about the smear documentary “Secrets & Lies” that it was the job of the media partners’ journalists (ie. journalists from the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel) to highlight which fields in the data needed redacting. That’s how 100 names slipped through and were published by Wikileaks in the AWD – the journalists had not done their task properly. So, in that context how did Lisa Magnusson of Sweden’s Metro newspaper get involved? The main players of the media partnership were so frigging on steroids about their ‘exclusives’ they would never have tolerated the involvement of someone from a rival news organisation.

    Lisa Magnusson speaks of Assange’s “hatred of those he is said to have raped”. This is in direct contradiction to EVERYTHING he has ever said publicly about the women. He has stated specifically that he would not diss the women. Even in his ‘autobiography’, while he denies raping anyone, he expresses bafflement, puzzlement – not hatred. In a recent, long Daily Mail interview held within the Ecuadorian embassy he said he would not discuss the allegations as that might lead to the idea “that a crime had been committed”. He continued “a gentleman doesn’t complain”. That’s the strongest statement against the women – that subtle hint that THEY might have committed a crime – I’d ever heard him say.

  97. Thanks again Arbed. I’m as sure as I can be that Göran Rudling and Anonymouse are the same person, and have been sure for some time. It was the Göran Rudling style I recognised in the comments of Anonymouse. That’s why I did a search on key terms and the term “don’t understand” was one which only Göran Rudling and Anonymouse had used among 1,000 comments on this blog (till Villager, after the fact, added his/hers). I’ve tried without success to extract a denial.

  98. Wtfuk, I tried to log into Flashback, but of course I need to create an account, Unfortunately I don’t know how. Arbed wrote:

    “it appeared yesterday that Rudling made a fool of himself in the English chat rooms where members could prove that he had at least two different nick except his real name, his agenda is thus quite clear now”

    I was trying to find out what pseudonyms he used on Flashback. Perhaps somebody could let me know. Thanks.

  99. Gosh, I’m hoping that some people from Flashback are checking here every so often. At the moment they are suggesting writing an open letter to Anders Perklev about the DNA-free condom and the issue of false ‘rape certificates’ from a particular hospital clinic. There’s one already written – and translated into Swedish – here:

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

    It just needs the first sentence deleted (because that’s now out of date) and a sentence or two about the ‘rape certificates’ added in and it’s good to go.

    Hope this message reaches Flashback somehow.

  100. Hello Duqu and wtfuk and other flashback’ers,

    Welcome and nice to have you here.

    There have been a number of earlier threads here on various aspects of the Assange situation recently in August, September and October. See the Archive Menu at top right.

    I have been raising some questions and dropping some crumbs of material I have come across and asking about matters needing some consideration by motivated Swedish readers. So rather than repeat my questions, allow me to give a link to some of these.

    Perhaps the following is a good starting point to link to; see also the following page. The “treasure hunt” was particularly aimed at flashback readers (see the clarifications on page 5 also).

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/comment-page-4/#comment-364096

    Much appreciate your input.

  101. Flashback here.
    Cannot out here, a member of Flashback that outs another member in flashback, or in another blog, gets permanently banned from Flashback (rule 1:06).

    But if you want more of Rudling, read some of Mary Rose eleonore engs:s stuff, it shows clearly how Rudling in an early attempt, tried to move inside the wikileaks organisation, but was rejected. That explains his eager to use material from Flashback that he took to the police, and then got an ticket to London to be a witness. Rudling blew all fuses when Mary wrote a little to much on her wordpress account and he got very upset.

    You find a lot of details here ( be aware of a very complex person…) and then scroll on:
    http://braingarbagedystopie.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/rape-victim-bashing-and-antisemitism-re.html

    You don´t need an account to only read Flashback,you need it if you want to write, and it takes 3 days to get accepted from the time of application.

    If someone near Craig, could give him a “hint” that the sms is of a big interest in Sweden, we would be very happy, especially for JA himself, and a kick in the but on the swedish judical system…

  102. Thanks for that explanation Duqu. I’ve had a look before at Ms Eng’s blogspot which as you say reveals a complex person. I’ll take another look.

  103. Arbed, I sent that letter with my own covering letter to Mr Anders Perklev, with copies to Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, et al, and never got a single acknowledgement from any of them. People are so rude.

  104. As a 12 year resident of Ecuador, and having watched and learned about the political game since November 63, I am impressed with Correa’s regime to the extent that it is the one government that I have ever felt inclined to actually cast a vote for.
    Like Chavez there is strong media manipulation of popular support figures, for the coming election.
    I can certainly understand that there are the kind of people who would be the usual suspects in any country who see with horror efforts by Correa to wrest control of the country from them. Apparently they also have such little imagination that the accusations of dictator and corruption are only self mirrors of the accusers. Corruption has always been a problem here, and it is particularly those that hate Correa that have been the ones benefiting from this practice, until recently. People here are not as anxious to bend the rules as before, And it is by example from the top that the new mores are based. The comments from Daniel above are classic.

  105. Duku, Wtfuk or any other Flashbackers – if any of you are reading here – I’ve left messages for you guys on the “Why I’m Convinced Anna Ardin is a Liar” thread. Comments 838 to 942. Thanks.

  106. That has been the best way to increase Chávez influence in Latin America.

  107. Craig, just thought you might like to know, your post got mentioned by Correa himself in a speech a few days ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDtUUPpTTVg&feature=fvwrel It has English translation if you activate captions and translate them into English.

  108. Do not forgat that the money is so powerfull, actually betwen oposition politics ecuadorian inescrupulous, and poors of ideals, so US focused that politics ever, or sutil ways of assucks.

  109. John, I love that ‘Gringo Go Home’ banner at the start and end of the video you posted. Thanks for posting it. You might not be aware that Craig Murray used this video in his latest explosive blog on CIA drug-funded activities to try and destabilise President Rafael Correa’s re-election.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted by Expathos