I continue to do all I can to help Julian Assange in his struggle against the mire of false allegations with which governments are attempting to bring down Wikileaks and get him eventually to perpetual solitary confinement in the USA. I was with Julian again in the Embassy last week, and shall be visiting him there again shortly.
Which begs this question. If, as the government falsely claims, this is purely a case of genuine criminal investigation, with no political overtones, and if Julian Assange really is nothing more than an alleged criminal who has jumped bail, then why am I, and others helping him, not under arrest for aiding and abetting or conspiracy? Plainly the government need to get their narrative straight.
For MI5 and the police, if it makes it any easier, I shall be going on Thursday afternoon, (though I have no doubt you already knew that). You can arrest me then.
Hi Jon\craig,
Maybe you are right and I’m the one being ‘played’, but I find it hard to question GR’s motivations considering his work on AA’s deleted tweets and his appearance as a witness for JA?
Fair point Jon, some posters have questioned GR’s claims and I’m not saying I agree with ALL of Goran’s claims, but most of them are legitimate questions. And we can say without doubt that at least a few(Video facilities at Klara and AA being present throughout SW’s interview, are plainly mistakes).
CE 5.13pm
Are you aware that Goran Rudling appeared for the defence as a hostile witness? (That’s their description of him, by the way, not mine.) As to his motivations – and this is purely my personal belief – I think it relates to his being a lifelong campaigner to get the rape laws in Sweden changed to include the concept of consent. In Sweden, you see, rape needs to include an element of violence or coercion – consent can be present as long as the allegations include one or other of those two elements. Goran thinks the central issue in rape is one of consent. I do too.
Perhaps this need for elements of violence/coercion explains the three short phrases which were added into Sophie Wilen’s witness statement between the time she was interviewed (20 August 2010) and the date her statement was lodged on the police DurTva computer system on 26 August 2010, the time you will see on the copy available on the internet. There is some evidence of the original statement being passed by Mats Gehlin, the supervising police officer, to Claes Borgstrom, the court-appointed (and paid) complainants’ “counsellor” sometime over 23rd/25th August for review/revision.
I suspect this Assange case, with the international attention it brings and the ‘grey area’ consent issue at its core, is what Goran hopes will finally bring about that change in Swedish law – if it ever gets to trial. However, so many flaws in the underlying case and the police investigation have come to light in the meantime, that I think Goran’s approach has now become to throw as many obfustications and misdirections in the fire – not to mention completely ignoring any concerns regarding onward/US extradition – as he can in order to prevent popular support building against the extradition. He won’t get his cause celebre case to bolster his own activist cause that way, you see? I’m not attacking Goran’s cause at all here, in fact I rather approve of it. But misinforming the public as to the true facts in Assange’s case isn’t a good way to go about it.
Guys, guys…….there is really no point reacting to CE’s posts, because it is clear that he’s not here to make serious points but merely to disrupt, cretae diversions and get issues bogged down in sterile point scoring.
For Heaven’s sake, let’s stop feeding the beast. Let him post away, but let’s all resolve NOT to respond to his attempted disruption. Let’s show some self-discipline.
@Sven, thank you. The Goran Rudling fan club has evolved into its own monster, demanding to be fed regularly. Unfortunately, it cannot digest what it is fed so it frequently suffers from verbal diarrhea.
Hey at least CE is on topic, ~kind of.
@CE
.
GG – “I’m able to obtain from the Brazilian government a permanent visa because my Brazilian partner’s government recognizes our relationship for immigration purposes, while the government of my supposedly ‘free,’ liberty-loving country enacted a law explicitly barring such recognition.”
So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find, meaning as it happens, almost invariably countries where gay people are persecuted, imprisoned and liable to be tortured or murdered by the government, and where the lives of gay people are far, far harder and more dangerous than Greenwald appears to understand – or care.
.
CE, you are such a fucking idiot.
.
The facts stand in the way of your argument. Greenwald was writing in the same vein well before the scenario you point to, totally simplistically, as being the basis of his forensic analysis of US foreign policy.
.
You need to shut up. I’ve read your name each time with gritted teeth. It’s obvious you are not interested in what Craig writes, it’s painfully obvious you’re here to derail and ‘redress the balance’ etc.
.
I hope you’re being paid for the rubbish you spew, or are you the sort of useful idiot that is happy to work for free out of feelings of inferiority?
.
(Sorry to the rest of you, you know I’ve read Craig’s site for aeons and don’t usually engage in a spat, but this post is the straw that broke the camel’s back).
Sorry, Sven. Just saw what you wrote. Uh, fail, Felix.
Going by nearly a decade of experience on a Usenet group I created many years ago, which was subject to several and various efforts to spook it, I doubt very strongly indeed that CE is posting here in good faith.
I’d reject the hypothesis of good faith at the 99.9% level.
Göran I can tolerate because without him Anna Ardin’s deleted tweets would not have been discovered. He also has a lot of knowledge and some of his comments, and posts on his blog are, I believe, a positive help to Julian Assange. Like the statement from Ms S’s work colleague which I have not seen reproduced elsewhere.
http://samtycke.nu/doc/ass/police-marie-en.pdf
Also I really think he has no desire to see Julian Assange convicted, and much of what he writes is tongue in cheek. He plays devil’s advocate with sometimes an excruciatingly wicked sense of humour. CE’s motives are more worrying to me. The first response I saw from him was directed at me after I contacted The Independent newsroom to find out why no media outlets in this country were commenting on the Expressen article published 18 months ago which revealed that Anna Ardin and Irmeli Krans were friends and had apparently colluded in trying to bring down Julian Assange. I have seen no comments from him since then that have shown any change in the viewpoint, including today’s, that have shown the slightest iota of sympathy for Julian Assange. Draw your own conclusions.
John Goss 9.30pm
The document you link to is Witness I statement in the police protocols, available since February 2011.
Here’s all of them for you:
http://rixstep.com/1/20110204,04.shtml
Some people from the Swedish Flashback forum have been commenting on Craig’s “Why I’m convinced” post in the last few days and have confirmed that the Rixstep translations are “perfect” and “a superb job”. It’s the most authoritative source.
Some points to consider:
Have they been here a long time or just turned up when Assange was mentioned? Have they ever contributed anything of actual interest? Any laughs? Do they have redeeming features? If so, to what extent? Do we unnecessarily rely on them? How much is it a matter of say Texan abruptness or European certitude turning up in a polite English village?
Seeing the disrespect persist and be now dragged over to this new thread topic suggests those concerned at best have low social awareness, some most likely have ulterior motives. Some have indicated they see it as a battle, firing parting shots after the moderator says goodnight. When being firmly handled, they become manipulative and try to engage again – “We…”
Others may just need to be told “Enough!” more often.
Whatever the causes, the outcome is that it polarises and disrupts the conversation, driving out the middle ground and discourages input from other contributors who have constructive input or are able to respectfully disagree and try to convince others to see their viewpoint.
Presumably this is not the first such blog with these issues, and hopefully Craig and the moderators are open to seeking out some FAQs or other guidance on how best to educate and otherwise manage this issue, so as to care for the community and the moderators themselves, before fatigue or worse takes over.
Craig,
if it has by now been translated into English, perhaps he would appreciate a copy of Stieg Larsson’s manual for journalists:
“ÖVERLEVA DEADLINE – handbok för hotade journalister”
“Survive the Deadline” (no, that does not refer to the editor 🙂 )
Full biography here:
http://librarykvpattom.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/stieg-larsson/
I found a very interesting open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev requesting that Marianne Ny be investigated for the way she’s handled the Assange case:
http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE
there’s a translation into Swedish too.
Welcome back Craig – Talking about America and conspiracies and I make no apologies here, here’s Piers Morgan interviewing Jesse Ventura – absolutely electric!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7WGMGHNHfw
Arbed,
regarding our discussion on another thread about extradition(forgetting for a moment that there is currently no application and that it would be easier to extradite JA from the UK than Sweden), you stated your belief(forgive me if I am wrong), that further trumped charges could and would be added to JA’s charge sheet after extradition, thus getting around any conditions of extradition and resulting in JA facing the death penalty.
Would the doctrine of speciality not apply or is there a history od this doctrine being overlooked? The Legal Dictionary defines the doctrine as “when a person has been surrendered for extradition, he or she can be prosecuted or punished only for the crimes for which extradition was requested, and not for any other crimes committed prior to the surrender. The doctrine was first established over a hundred years ago, in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234, 30 L. Ed. 425 (1886). In Rauscher, the defendant, a U.S. citizen, was extradited from Great Britain for the beating death of a ship’s crew member on a U.S. vessel but was indicted and tried on a charge of Cruel and Unusual Punishment based on the same act. Although the speciality principle was not specifically enumerated in the treaty that allowed the extradition, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an accused “shall not be arrested or tried for any other offense than that with which he was charged in those proceedings.”
John Goss
“Göran I can tolerate because without him Anna Ardin’s deleted tweets would not have been discovered. He also has a lot of knowledge and some of his comments, and posts on his blog are, I believe, a positive help to Julian Assange. Like the statement from Ms S’s work colleague which I have not seen reproduced elsewhere.”
Goran got the tweet info via the Flashback site and latched onto it with speed, which is to his credit. Nothing original though and no credit to the Flashback source from Goran at all. His ex wife was a press spokesman for the Immigration Board whilst Julian Assange applied for a work permit in Sweden to set up Wikileaks. As a result of the so called sexual assualt charges and political pressure from the conservative govt, the application was dismissed. The board did though at a very early stage have a copy of the police so called sexual assualt protocal. Goran got hold of this document via his ex wife and with info still not widely available played the cards to his chest.
The Stockholm branch – International Jurist seminar today is to look at the damage done to Swedens international credibility in the Assange case. The hypocrit morons are now starting to get the message that the international community are outraged by their cunning and deceitful behaviour. The chickens are coming home to roost…. The only person with credibility at this conference is the former judge Brita Sundberg Weitman. A brave woman taking a principled stand against the primitive nationalistic position of mainstream Sweden in the Assange case. Rudling is on the panel which should make the soup bitter sweet in taste!!.
I would have attended if their were decision making government representatives on the panel, this is after all a political case which everyone in the civilised world understands.
Rudlig should propose at this seminar, Swedish state funded dildos to their feminist compatriots. They can in the future play with their dildos and die out out as a race. We have other civilized issues to deal with in the international community.
Re – Seminar today.
Watching Goran Rudling entertainment show today should be well worth the 50 SEK entry fee…
Dull, rainy and wintry conditions in Stockholm today, a good laugh is whats needed!!
@CE — Haven’t read through the whole thread yet, sorry, but as an American I wanted to respond to your comment about GG where you said: “So as a result, Greenwald takes up the cause of every enemy of the US you can find…”
I’ll let Mark Twain speak for me: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
Glennzilla is all right by me, a patriot hero in fact. Can’t say the same for what calls itself a government in Washington.
Best wishes all.
CE 12.41am
Thank you for asking about the “specialty” issue. This is included in Section 58 of the 2003 Extradition Act (the legislation on which British extraditions under the EAW is based). Specialty does, as you point out, mean that someone can only be extradited for one crime, and therefore cannot be onward-extradited for something else entirely. All well and good.
Except…
Theresa May (or whoever the Home Secretary is) can waive specialty under Section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003 and her decision is not necessarily subject to judicial review. Here’s the link showing that:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/58
CE 12.41am
Sorry CE – just for clarity, I am, of course, talking about extradition to the US via Sweden and you are talking about extradition direct to the US from the UK (which is not what’s happening). My belief is that the US request for extradition – from Sweden, but to which the UK’s Section 58 Specialty doctrine/UK consent would apply – are likely to be of the “unauthorised access to government computer systems”/”theft of documents” (ie criminal as opposed to political) variety in order not to run into any bars in either Sweden’s or the UK’s legislation against extradition on political/death penalty charges.
This would avoid there being any backlash at all if Theresa May was to waive Section 58 specialty/consent to onward extradition, Sweden to US.
I thought I’d paste the full text of that open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General I mentioned earlier. I’ve left out the first sentence, as that now seems out of date. At a guess, I’d say this letter was originally written prior to the Supreme Court hearing but it brings up many issues that are still current. The original at the link also contains half a dozen hyperlinks within in. The ones to the Swedish Prosecution website setting out Swedish procedural rules are a real eye-opener and clearly indicate that Marianne Ny has broken all sorts of due process guidelines:
http://justice4assange.com/Action.html#SE
Mr Anders PERKLEV
Prosecutor General
Office of the Prosecutor General
Östermalmsgsatan 87c
Box 5553
S-114 85 Stockholm Sweden
By email: [email protected]
OPEN LETTER TO ANDERS PERKLEV, PROSECUTOR GENERAL, SWEDEN
Dear Anders Perklev,
Mr Assange’s case has drawn international attention and left many ordinary European citizens questioning what safeguards and protections there are in the EAW scheme for people facing police investigation in Europe. In view of this, could you please provide some clarity for non-Swedish citizens on some aspects of Swedish judicial procedure for which you as Prosecutor General have overall responsibility.
On 6 December 2011 the Swedish Prosecution Authority issued a statement pointing out that Sweden decided to make ALL public prosecutors “judicial authorities” for the purposes of issuing EAWs under the Framework Directive. This is not something that was anticipated by British Parliamentarians when drafting the UK Extradition Act 2003 (Hansard), who felt strongly that such warrants should only be issued by a court. May I ask why you felt it necessary to issue such a statement on that date?
Mr Assange’s name was leaked to the press, apparently by the Stockholm Prosecution Service, which is illegal under Sweden’s privacy laws. Can you outline – for an international audience – what steps were taken to investigate this and a summary of the findings. How were those responsible dealt with?
Can you publish some statistics on how often a Swedish public prosecutor nominates themselves as the chief investigator in a case? The Swedish Prosecution Authority English website says: “In the case of less serious crimes, the police continue to lead the preliminary investigation.” As the strongest allegation against Mr Assange is described on the Prosecution Authority’s own website as “less serious crime”, it is not clear why Marianne Ny is involved in the case as chief investigator at this stage.
Mutual Legal Assistance is ordinarily used to interrogate people in foreign jurisdictions. However, Marianne Ny stated that British and Swedish law prevented her from questioning Julian Assange in London, which was untrue. Her statement was later redacted. What disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General when a senior public prosecutor misleads the public in this way?
Can you please outline – if only in general terms – on what basis this case was re-opened on 1 September 2010 after Eva Finné, a senior prosecutor you appointed to review it, cancelled the original arrest warrant – “I consider that there are no grounds for suspecting that he has committed rape.” – leaving only one instance of alleged molestation still to be investigated? From reading the leaked police protocol on the internet – as millions of people across Europe have – there seems to be only one item of new evidence which might have appeared between Eva Finné’s decision on 25 August 2010 and the re-opening of the case, a torn used condom. However, the forensic analysis of 25 October 2010 included in the prosecution protocol does not support any offences related to this item being included on the face of the EAW issued by Marianne Ny on 18 November 2010. To put it plainly, no DNA could be found on this condom.
http://rixstep.com/2/20110619,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/2/1/20110622,00.shtml
http://rixstep.com/1/20111126,01.shtml
This would appear not to meet the Prosecution Authority’s Objectivity Demand (on your website): “Forensic evidence must, of course, be gathered and investigated in a correct and secure manner. The prosecutor must also be objective when he or she initiates a prosecution. During the course of the trial it is admittedly the prosecutor’s task to prove that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor is obliged to give due consideration to anything that could change the situation with respect to evidence.”
Again, please outline – for an international audience – whether this is a disciplinary matter and, if so, what disciplinary measures are available to you as Prosecutor General.
I am particularly concerned that Mutual Legal Assistance has not been used in this case. Under Sweden’s Code of Judicial Procedure “the investigation should be conducted so that no person is unnecessarily exposed to suspicion, or put to unnecessary cost or inconvenience.” (Chapter 23, Section 4) and there is no doubt that a great deal of both Swedish and British taxpayers’ money has been wasted arguing this extradition in court when much simpler methods could have been used to question Julian Assange. Can you please explain the mechanisms by which Britain is reimbursed its costs in representing the Swedish Prosecution Authority in the UK courts? Likewise, what avenues are available to Mr Assange to seek recompense for his substantial personal legal costs in challenging this abuse of the European Arrest Warrant process?
Yours sincerely,
[name] [UK/Swedish/Australian Citizen / Citizen of _______ ]
Thanks very much for that new information Rico Santin. Enjoy the seminar. And please keep us informed as to what, if any, conclusions are drawn. If it’s any consolation I’ve just walked the dogs in driving rain.
Thanks Arbed. We are so ill-informed in this country.
Yes. Thanks to Arbed, Rico, John and all for shining such a revealing light on these issues.
Thanks also to the CE committee for scurrying about and spewing out all that bile and disinformation. My money’s on you probably being a bunch of ex Oxbridge chaps and gals on an assignment. If not then the “intelligence services” my taxes pay for aren’t doing their job. Whatever we are paying you all, you aint worth it. I suggest your minders reallocate you to persuading us how those cuddly Gulf Despots are buying freedom and democracy for Syria. Maybe the BBC can give you your very own sitcom.
And thanks of course to Craig. You’re a national treasure!
@ John Goss and Dom
Well, if you fancy joining Craig in a little “aiding and abetting” there’s nothing to stop you emailing that open letter to the Swedish Prosecutor-General…
Good idea Arbed. I’m onto it now. Is the email address on the open letter? I’ll check.
John,
It’s actually included above. All you have to do is cut and paste. Oh, but hang on, having the version with the hyperlinks in it too would be good, I guess. I just cut out the first sentence of the letter as it appears on the Justice4Assange site.
Please spread 😉
John Goss, would you like my signature as well, ehh how do we do this?
Could you put it up on your blog for a limited time, with a link so others can sign it? Indeed should this be replicated elsewhere?
Once we go your link, we can publish it to other interested fora, see how many we can get in a week.
Arbed,
Thanks for the suggestion. The open letter is very revealing. Swedish Prosecutor-General duly emailed.
@ Nevermind 10.18am
Oh, the way I read it, that letter is designed for anyone to cut and paste and send it from their own email. But I suppose there would be value in setting it up in a way to collect signatures and send it that way. Any idea how that could work, John?