Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

32 thoughts on “Assange Sex Charges Detail

1 2
  • nevermind

    Thanks Craig and John. After reading this and watching the video, who could possibly provide a safe abode for Julian?

    It’ll take a good plastic surgeon to provide him with a private life, should he ever seek one.

  • Clark

    31:42 in the ABC video, Julian Assange:

    “If I was suddenly taken to Sweden I would not be in a position to apply for political asylum, in relation to the United States. Um, it would be the, the, end of the road, I would just be taken from one jail to another”

    Q: Why didn’t the US just extradite Assange from the UK?

    A: The US knew that an application for extradition would have alerted Assange, who could then have taken refuge in an embassy. The US preferred Assange to be taken into custody, and thus deprived of that option.

  • Jay

    Why neo con?

    We use labels to distinguish, please why are we forgeting virtues, of all things these are what define all of us.
    Come on Craig step up.

  • Passerby

    The hypocrisy of the Western oligarchy, that puts so much emphasis on the “rights” of human, and then proceeds to take the “Gulag” to the dissidents within their domain of influence. This is a much more sophisticated attempt in dealing with dissent, and coercion of dissidents, than the primitive mode of sending the dissidents into “Gulags”.

    The fact that Craig stood in front of the Ecuadoran embassy and referred to his own bitter ordeal, out in the open recollecting the shameful accusations of “shags for visa” allegations which were levelled at him and perused in legal channels, only for these shameless allegations to be found totally baseless slurs against him.

    Craig then recollecting janis karpinski’s bitter ordeal, and the allegations of shoplifting levelled at her, and going to finally refer to Assange getting fitted up. This then is totally ignored by the hit peace in guardian that deliberately ignores Craig’s actual speech, and him going on record, to qualify his contentions, is only a natural component of the Gulag being taken to the dissident.

    Those hacks in guardian are reliant on ignorance of the people whom have not heard Craig speech. They extrapolate thus, then engaging in the campaign of shameless disinformation to be fed to the public who actually pays to buy the rag that is feeding these the puerile propaganda. Talk about brainwashing in the DPRK, but not here in UK, after all we all know we are free! (yeah I should cocoa too)

    The fact that each dissident has had their baptism of fire, all loosing their livelihood, all ending in the various legal binds and traps set before them. Those dissidents deemed to be lucky stay alive and get tortured mentally and physically to end their days as David Shayler does. Others not so lucky are suicided, or accidneted, to keep the band wagon rolling. These are the moral lessons taught to those other concerned citizens whom function within the plutocratic system to remind them; “Memento mori ”, simply put; nail that sticks out gets hammered in.

    Thus in the West never send our dissidents to Gulags, for those dissident each are furnished with their very own Gulag, a much more efficient and cost effective measure, with the additional benefit of the superiority hat is sought and gained by occupation of the moral high ground.

  • Chris2

    The Guardian position is flanked by that section of the “left” which is currently supporting the salafi insurgents in Syria, and which is still congratulating itself for the “revolution” in Libya.

    The current theorist for this latest wave of emigration from Trotskyism to neo-fascism, is Richard Seymour of Lenin’s Tomb. His latest piece on Assange is a model of the sort of casuistry which used to be associated with provincial schoolmen in the monasteries.

    It is worth reading, but a strong stomach will come in handy.

  • Mary

    The Medialens editors on how the ‘medja’ viewed Gore Vidal and how they attempted to belittle him and trivialize his work.
    ‘Just as well. As the above comments make clear, not only did Vidal’s analysis lack any semblance of what corporate journalists call ‘nuance’, he poured scorn on their entire profession:

    ‘I tried to explain to the press club what it is they do that they don’t know they do. I quote David Hume: “The Few are able to control the Many only through Opinion.” In the eighteenth century, Opinion was dispensed from pulpit and schoolroom. Now the media are in place to give us Opinion that has been manufactured in the boardrooms of those corporations – once national, now international – that control our lives.’ (Vidal, Virgin Islands – Essays 1992-1997, Andre Deutsch, 1997, p.188)’

    ‘The Man Who Knew Everyone’ – Gore Vidal Through The Eyes Of The One Per Cent Press

  • larry Levin

    Just watched video of Craig Murray talking about Assange, on the democracy now youtube channel.


  • conjunction

    Excellent film. Have I ever seen a British documentary with such independence of spirit, especially when it comes to our American friends? No.

    In my view this film tells you all you need to know to make up your mind about Mr. Assange’s alleged guilt, near as dammit.

  • Jon


    Do you mean this? – it seemed quite alright to me. Isn’t it the sensible position – that we arrange for Assange to speak to Swedish prosectors whilst being mindful of the possibility of US extradition? I’ve advocated for said Swedes to come to London, and as far as I know Assange’s team have always been prepared to do that.

    If they decide to charge him, then of course the game changes – but they will need to be rigorous, and will be aware that the eyes of the world are upon them. Since they’ve considered the case and rejected it before, I’d be of the view that no charges would be brought.

    With all that in mind, what is your objection to Seymour’s piece?

  • Ben Franklin

    This video gives me some encouragement. Although, the maliciousness of the DHS and FBI is non-controversial in it’s verity, they are the Gang that Couldn’t shoot straight. Opportunism seems to be the government’s strongest virtue. Assange was in Sweden for 5 weeks, voluntarily, for the investigation. Then they let him leave Sweden. The Prosecutor said it’s confusing, and I think she was telling the truth. Bureaucracies are inherently lacking intelligence. They can’t find their asses with both hands.

    Ham-handedness is one of the dangers, I understand that. But the seamless conspiracies woven by the
    omniscient illuminati, it’s not. They’re as dangerous as a cannonball on the Foredeck, or a Viking with a wooden sword. They can be bested.

  • deepgreenpuddock

    @ Jon
    I read the post from Chris2 and was about to write a response that is basically the same as yours. Can’t see a big problem with the analysis at Lenin’s Tomb. Seymour prefers to avoid the speculation about the accusers. Can’t see anything wrong there. He also thinks the simple solution is for the Swedish authorities to travel, and especially in the absence of actual charges, that seems to me perfectly sensible, and a very common approach to an investigation. Their refusal to countenance such a simple initial solution is very questionable and indicates some unspoken agenda, especially in such a high profile case. At this stage it is deeply questionable how fair the process can now be, as each side has become so deeply invested in a position. This matter has been very badly handled by the prosecutors in Sweden. The Swedish woman in the film who stated there was nothing irregular needs to be subjected to deeper questioning.

  • Mary

    Read Medialens Message Board for a view of Richard Seymour aka Lenin’s Tomb. Enter his name in their search box. Gabriele and many others have got his number. Chameleon like, Seymour changed his colour.

  • Jon

    Mary, do you mean this conversation? That seems to be about Syria, which isn’t strongly connected to this topic (except it is about imperialism, but that’s a very wide connection). Maybe you mean a different link?

  • nevermind

    Here we have tardy ol’ George Galloway jumping on to the Julian Assange publicity bandwagon by saying that what he’d done to the two women could not be called rape, just to get himself into some context,….. and

    the next thing is that the rape crisis centre is joining him by jumping down his throat for his blatancies, also guaranteed some publicity on the backs of others.

    I have got news for both. George has a problem in his Town with rape and he should try and hone his messages and assist the rape crisis centre. As for the rape crisis centre, their attention should be on the decades of failure by British judges and its police foot soldiers, to get convictions for rape, not with two alleged crimes in Sweden.

    If its too hot and you can’t get anywhere with the day to day chores, why not jump on somebody else’s bandwagon and get a little publicity for your work and before you know it George’s your uncle.

  • Stephen Morgan

    Looks to me like Anna Ardin must be the villain of the piece.

    1) She has known links to the CIA through her association with right-wing Cuban terrorists, long protected by the CIA.
    2) She’s known as a radical feminist even in “the Saudi Arabia of feminism”, as Assange called it.
    3) IT seems to have been her idea to go to the police to compel an STD test when she was in a position to know that wasn’t possible.
    4) She then made imflammatory statements leading to the police deciding on a prosecution.
    5) She accused Assange of ripping a condom during sex, which has been conclusively proven untrue.
    6) Wilen refused to sign her statement during the initial visit to the police on finding out charges were to be laid, going so far as to storm out.

  • JoshUKinUS

    I am deeply embarrassed over how the UK is so ready to do the USA’s bidding like a willing little lapdog. Regardless of whether the Sweden charges have merit or are pretextual, the sanctity of the Ecuadorian Embassy is sacrosanct. Any violation of the Embassy means NO embassy ANYWHERE is safe from local (and political) intrusion.

    Have you no shame, SIR?

  • Mauricio

    Hey I can´t watch the video anymore because some moron claimed copyright on it!! Please put it on another website and send me the link… please! JUST NOT FAIR!!

  • Jon

    Heh, calm down Mauricio. In narrow terms the owner does have a right to claim copyright on it, although one could argue that such a state of affairs runs contrary to the public interest in spreading it widely.

    In the meantime, just go to the broadcaster’s site, and watch it there :). Do also click on Show background information to open out their extensive sources list. They have this set of interviews as well, very interesting.

  • VivaEcuador

    For what it is worth, I have been posting this video repeatedly on the Guardian CIF, the DT discussions and the FT debates. It is amazing to see the reaction from the Hang Assange High! lobby. Total silence. They just don’t want to hear about it.

    I asked them repeatedly – did you watch it? Silence. They prefer the taste of sand in their mouths.

    I crossed swords with a twerp called Woop on the FT. He kept referring to “RAPE allegations” and said anyone who supported Assange was a freak. So I asked him finally:

    Why do you refer to “RAPE allegations” instead of “rape ALLEGATIONS”?

    No reply. They have no reply.

  • Andy (@NCCLols)

    Jeez Craig, I cannot put into words how much you fucked up on Newsnight earlier. You need to sort out a massive apology v quickly or lose any credibility.

  • craig Post author

    Really Andy,

    Anna Ardin has been named by the New York Times, the Times of India, by many many thousands of newspapers all over the world. There are 193,000 articles about her on the internet. Millions of tweets. Everybody in Sweden – which is where she lives – knows her name. I should apologise for not pretending its a secret? Or was there something else?

  • Jim

    Great work Craig. Scary times.
    I depair of our media and politicians failing to pursue “Who sanctioned the letter threatening to enter the Embassy?”
    This was a historic precedent which threatens our diplomats safety so I’m guessing not FCO and and threw away the diplomatic repution of the country in one futile gesture.

  • David

    What’s so disgusting about all this is the amount of self-censorship and self-bullying that is going.

    The mainstream UK/Western media has basically judged Assange a rapist, and anyone who questions this is also judged a rapist.

    Intelligent women who know better than to believe this sensationalized rubbish feel gagged and cannot condemn the media attack on this man for fear of being labeled complicit with patriarchy and apologetic about rape.

    Intelligent men cannot condemn it without being skewered as pro-rape, and having it confirmed that all men are potential rapists (as certain powerful charities would have us believe).

    What has happened here? I’ll tell you what has happened. This is no longer about Wikileaks at all. It is about abusing the term rape (in a way that trivializes all those who really have had such a crime committed against them) and using this high-profile case to advance the cause of gender hatred and anti-father legislation guiding the family justice system.

    Not long ago, the Coalition announced its support for a presumption of shared parenting, and jettisoned the infamous Norgrove family justice commission report that had proposed fathers have no rights after divorce. Those who are savvy of the political battlefield of family law warned that there was going to be a real bloodbath now, as the so-called single-parent charities/organizations sought to discredit shared parenting, by ratcheting up statistics about male-on-female violence.

    I fear that this whole media spectacle has now been hijacked by the domestic violence lobby in a very sinister way.

1 2

Comments are closed.