Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

by craig on September 11, 2012 1:05 pm in Uncategorized

I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.

The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

Tweet this post

1,985 Comments

1 4 5 6 7 8 20

  1. Clark

    “But I sincerely believe that Assange will end up “disappeared”, tortured and/or dead if he submits to custody.”

    Hallelujah!!!

    Do you believe in walking on water? Virgin birth? Stoning? Moon landing was a fake?

    “Anyone who was brought up to hold dogmatic religious beliefs which they later overcame (as I was and have) will be familiar with the power of group belief systems in defeating rational evaluation and enabling the belief of utter nonsense in the face of all available facts.”

    Looks you found a new religion. But have no fear.

    Talk to the Muppet Show Shrinks

    “familiar with the power of group belief systems in defeating rational evaluation”

    I see it on this blog. Sorry. Just had to say it.

  2. Suhayl Saady,

    “Can I ask one very naive, and possibly stupid question, of Goran? Can you please explain why, Goran, you (I think, voluntarily? Correct me if that’s wrong) appeared for the defence (I assume the defence was Assange’s party?) at the extradition hearing in London, if you believe so firmly that the most appropriate thing to happen would be for Assange to go to Sweden and face the charges? Thank you for your time.”

    I was asked. Since the deleted tweets are only of importance when the case comes to Sweden I incorrectly assumed the defense was thinking of an alternative strategy to defence based on ignorance of Swedish law and procedures. I was wrong. For some reason my prediction of the outcome was right.

    With 24 I’ll post an article that is more factual and shows some grave weaknesses in the defence.

  3. Clark,

    “So far as I know, Wilen never wanted Assange charged at all. So I do call this allegation minor. It seems that the first prosecutor agreed with this viewpoint.”

    Show me the prosecutors decision that shows that she agrees with the viewpoint that Sofia Wilén never wanted Assange charged at all.

    Sorry, it is something you made up. Publish her decision and we can all have a look.

    Get your facts straight before you post anything please.

  4. Clark,

    “Göran Rudling, I am sorry that I called you a liar. I still think you deceived me, going on about the two paragraphs, implying I was stupid, and then introducing additional material. I’ll amend my comment if you so request.

    As I said. You can call me anything. Does not change the facts of the case.

    I am just in a friendly way beating you over the head in the hope that you will come out of your very strong beliefs.

    About the two paragraphs, Linda’s memo and my explanation. What is your opinion.

    Sometimes I am stupid too. Do you think I care if you WERE stupid. Why do you think I reply to you comments? I think like most people on this earth have potential. I like to see people grow when they can figure out things on their own. I like that smile on people’s faces when finally understand. And I know they grow and will go an understand more things.

    Truly. You appear thick sometimes. But I think your potential is far far greater than your present “thickness”.

    Love,

    Göran

    P.S. Are the Muppet Show Shrinks now gonna accuse of being a hidden homo?

  5. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh,

    Free at last. Free at last. If anybody feels like I haven’t answered a comment please tell me.

    Later today, likely afternoon, there is a follow up on Julian being charged. And you may see how his English legal team made mistake after mistake after ……

    I’ll post the link for you.

  6. Thank you Göran for responding. I have read the blog link you included. My comment which I tried to post on your blog (though your Captcha codes are crap) eventually vanished so I presume it is awaiting moderation. Anyway, I repeat it here, just in case.

    ‘I can fully understand Julian Assange’s lawyers attaching conditions. Several things militate against him being interviewed in Sweden. For one there is the language barrier. You yourself have spent tedious hours trying to explain the difficulty in your blog on the word ‘charge’ alone and its Swedish interpretations. Another is the threat of being picked up by the CIA and jetted to a penal institution where his liberty would be removed until Wikileaks no longer had any teeth. Thirdly, and most important, there is precedent for Swedish police and prosecutors interviewing people abroad on much more serious questions, for example, murder. Julian Assange is right: there is an ulterior motive for trying to get him on Swedish soil. My suspicion is it would not involve the Swedish Law Courts and before any protest could be made it would be too late.

    Surely it would be simple to outline questions to be put to Mr Assange so the interpreter can be precise. What is wrong with that? I am sorry there is no reason why he should not be interviewed in the UK! After all, he has already been interviewed in Sweden when complaints against him were dropped.’

  7. from Goran’s post 11.35pm

    “I will also source some videos for you that explains the case much better that Mr Murray and Arbed does”

    Whoo, I’ve been put on a par with Craig! I’m very flattered by that. I hope anyone who’s been following this thread closely will have noticed that Goran has never actually disproved any point I’ve made. Not even tried, really. I’ve been following the whole case closely from the beginning and I probably know as much about it as he does.

    As a few people here have noticed, Goran has shifted his position considerably over time from the point he was at when he did that long article on Wikileaks Central with the solicitor Peter Kemp, and perhaps his objectivity has become clouded somewhat. One must remember, as his blog name Consent Now makes clear, that Goran’s primary objective – and it is a GOOD one – is to get the Swedish laws on rape amended to include the concept of consent. That is really all he cares about. And getting a case like Assange’s – which has a ‘grey areas’ consent issue at its heart – to be heard IN SWEDEN he probably feels is the ticket to achieving his lifelong aim. Unfortunately, as more and more of the details of this investigation and prosecution are revealed, and consequently the case looks weaker and weaker, I would suggest the urgency of Goran’s underlying motivation has led him to veer towards increasingly desperate measures to PROVE that the case is strong enough to warrant Assange extradition to Sweden (and to DISPROVE every valid objection to that or worry about onward extradition to the US) so that Goran can get his precious trial.

    Sorry, but that’s my take on the matter. I, of course, have my own biases too. I got raped myself (long ago enough to be over it by now) and I took it to the police, but rape is a crime which is very difficult to prosecute successfully and the CPS decided not to go ahead with bringing my case to trial, perhaps thinking that would spare me a hard time at the hands of defence lawyers. Though I was furious about their decision at the time, and wanted my day in court, I later came to understand it better. It’s left me with a very strong interest in how this crime is prosecuted and I’ve actually studied the issue formally. I hope, despite my own personal experience, I still have sufficient objectivity to understand that justice – if it is to mean anything at all – MUST apply equally to both accusers and accused.

    What I know about this case has confirmed sufficiently for me that it has been – to date, and will likely continue to be – clearly a miscarriage of justice and wholly unfair to Julian Assange.

    Beyond that, I am a supporter of the Wikileaks project for revealing the secret and abusive machinations of powerful institutions to the general public, so I’ve taken an equally close look at the situation behind the threat of US extradition and prosecution of Assange/Wikileaks. If anyone wishes to ask any questions about the Wikileaks Grand Jury process in America or about the details of Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearings, fire away. I’ll do my best to fill you in.

    So, now I’ve been elevated by Goran to the same giddy heights as Craig Murray, I like to ask any readers here who are interested in getting to the bottom of this complex and perplexing case to re-read the posts I’ve made so far in this thread. Sorry some of them are so long. There’s a hell of a lot of factual info in them. Again, any questions about points you’d like me to expand on further are welcome.

    Note to CE: Always remember there’s more to be revealed yet. Prepare yourself for when the women’s texts will finally come out. Because they will. It’s obvious to anyone watching closely that at least some of them are now loose in the wild, though not yet in the public domain. When they finally do become public domain, you are going to have to do a lot of back-tracking.

  8. @Arbed, thanks for that post, especially on the self-analysis of your own potential biases – very open and honest. I think your suggestions about Göran’s motivation rang more true for me that the other suggestion recently put forward – though worthy of consideration – which was one of career-building.

    I should love for him to put forward an equally honest appraisal of his psychological motivations, and indeed I encouraged him to do so in this very thread. But, having done that myself elsewhere in other contexts, I appreciate acutely that it is hard to do, especially in the public domain. Most of us here have the shield of at least some anonymity, so perhaps it is different for people who are in the public eye. Though, to be fair, Craig does it regularly!

  9. Arbed,

    Do you want me to?

  10. Here is a new post proving Julian Assange is charged

    From a legal point of view. It also a short analysis of Assange’s first legal teams efforts. Were they good? Did they miss things? Were they familiar with the Swedish criminal procedures? Did they mislead Julian?

    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/was-assanges-legal-team-incompetent/

  11. @John Goss:

    Another is the threat of being picked up by the CIA and jetted to a penal institution where his liberty would be removed until Wikileaks no longer had any teeth

    I’m primarily in agreement with you, but I think it is more that Assange is being made an example of. I think he is an asset to Wikileaks, and a well-known and able spokesperson, but I believe WL could (and should) carry on without him if necessary. WL is bigger, and more important, than Assange, and I think he’d agree with that.

  12. @Arbed

    While Craig is busy frying bigger fish, I and I’m sure many others posting here see you as the most effective response to what seems to have become The Goran Rudling Show.

  13. Just wanted to share, that new documents and information that appears to be relevant to the general discussion, are surfacing in Sweden right now, in what appears as an significant effort to request information under the laws of official transparancy.

    Among other things, emails and sms correspondence and mail logs for Marianne Ny, and correspondence between Ny and Assange’s lawyer, Hurtig, which if the source and authenticity can be verified, are highly significant in regard to the minutiae of this case.

    They will in all probability be checked and translated in due course, IF they are deemed to be the genuine thing.

    But just to pass on the awareness.

  14. John Goss,

    I’ll look at the captcha codes. I don’t disagree on that comment.

    Conditions for an interview. Just starting.

    When you are indicted you have the right to see the full case file. I think it is the same in England. It is about a fair trial. A formally charged person should have the right to prepare a defence.

    Julian claims, incorrectly as I shown, that he is not charged. If he is of the opinion that he is not even charged, how come he all of a sudden asks to be treated just like a person that is indicted? Please explain that.

    Please leave CIA out of it, and one legged sumo wrestlers

  15. Göran, I said:

    “But I sincerely believe that Assange will end up “disappeared”, tortured and/or dead if he submits to custody.”

    And you asked me:

    “Do you believe in walking on water? Virgin birth? Stoning? Moon landing was a fake?”

    No I don’t. Well, stoning exists and I oppose it, and I believe that walking on water and virgin birth can only be achieved technologically.

    However, I do believe in the Guantanamo bay and Abu Ghraib prisons were/are places of torture, and I believe in “Special/Secret Rendition” to places for torture. I believe that the USA used waterboarding. I believe that the USA is breaking its own and international law in its utterly inhuman treatment of Bradley Manning, and that the US administration pressured the UK to invade the Ecuadorian embassy in London. It is for these, and many other similar reasons that I oppose Assange submitting to custody.

    Then you wrote to me:

    “Show me the prosecutors decision that shows that she agrees with the viewpoint that Sofia Wilén never wanted Assange charged at all. Sorry, it is something you made up. Publish her decision and we can all have a look.”

    No, Göran. I qualified my assertion – “so far as I know”. It is something I have read, in English, not something I made up. You read Swedish, I cannot. If you know of evidence, one way or the other, link to it so we can all see.

    Göran, I am worried for Sofia Wilen, for the same reasons that I am worried for Julian Assange. You repeatedly point out the distortions by Assange’s support and legal teams. You do not show equal concern for distortion in the other direction. It should be clear to you from your study that this case is being used by powerful groups. Please apply more balance.

    I have read (but I have not verified) that not only has Sofia Wilen “disappeared”, but many online traces of her have also been deleted. Sofia Wilen may be in danger, or undergoing psychological manipulation by vested interests. I think that this possibility should concern you. Even if you do not care about Sofia Wilen (though I think that you do), someone may be interfering with her in order to change the testimony she would give.

    Göran, do you understand the origins of the perspective on this site? Do you know Craig Murray’s story, and understand why he believes that the Assange case is being politically manipulated? Maybe, one day, you will have time to read his book Murder in Samarkand. I recommend it.

  16. Göran, please stop ridiculing people’s fears of powerful authorities and the secret services. Such fears are well grounded in eminently verifiable facts. They are not irrational beliefs or fairy tales.

  17. As far as I am aware, all that Julian Assange has done to date is to point out to people that BECAUSE he has not been charged he does not have the legal rights of an accused – ie, access to the allegations and evidence against him (the case file which must be handed over by the prosecutor on charge) – so he is unable to defend himself against the allegations effectively AT THE PRESENT TIME.

    He has NOT asked to be given that file at this stage, as Goran is suggesting. Assange HAS asked – repeatedly, both while staying in Sweden until 27 September 2010 (the Freedom of Information documentation referred to by LastBlueBell will be very illuminating in this regard) and ever since – to be questioned by the Swedish prosecutor in order that, should she still feel it appropriate to prosecute him once that’s done, he can then go to Sweden, be charged and be given the full case file so that he can then properly defend himself.

    I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

    The UK Supreme Court too accepted this basic fact, and formally corrected a slip about it made by Lord Phillips (aside to John Goss: revealing little Freudian slip that one was, wasn’t it?) when reading out the judgment. Perhaps Goran now feels he has a better grasp of law than the Supreme Court…?

    Best to ignore Goran’s articles ‘proving’ that Assange has been charged. They’re pure misinformation, I’m afraid.

  18. Arbed,

    I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):

    I’ve read the info from the prosecutors in the link. I am sorry, cannot find any information that is saying that Julian has not been charged. Can you please point it out to me?

    I’ll check the Swedish version and see what it says.

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

  19. Arbed,

    Just for your info. There is nothing in the Swedish version that says that Julian has not been charged.

    Are we looking at the same texts?

    http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien–/

  20. Arbed,

    As far as I am aware, all that Julian Assange has done to date is to point out to people that BECAUSE he has not been charged he does not have the legal rights of an accused – ie, access to the allegations and evidence against him (the case file which must be handed over by the prosecutor on charge) – so he is unable to defend himself against the allegations effectively AT THE PRESENT TIME.

    For your information, a person charged does not according to Swedish law have the right to see the full case file. I post a link to Mark Stephens first witnesstatement Exibit 4. Read paragraph 5 in Björn Hurtig’s statement and tell me if there is anything you don’t understand.

  21. Jon, I still think it is unsafe for him to go to Sweden. People have been picked up there by CIA agents in the past and removed to oppressive regimes. Yes, I agree they are trying to denigrate Assange’s character, and Wikileaks is much bigger than one person, and is already carrying on without him, though I expect he is in touch.

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

    Göran, I would like to see Julian Assange answer the allegations lodged against him, providing it is in a safe environment with appropriate representation. I think the prosecution case would soon crumble (unless there is something that has not made it into the blogosphere). The case I am sure would soon be dropped. Assange has in the past talked about the events on HardTalk. He does not seem to be afraid to talk and the interviewer was pretty tough.

  22. Lastbluebell

    20 Sep, 2012 - 1:31 pm

    @Arbed, very eloquently and clearly said, and I would just like to add my appreciation and encouragment!

    @Jon, “…other suggestion recently put forward – though worthy of consideration – which was one of career-building.”

    I very much agree with Arbeds statements in the matter above, and I think she also formulated it much better and gave it a better context then I could have done, so for the record, I believe we both mean the the same thing, even if we use different words to try and convey that idea.

    And I think that could be an important reminder in a wider perspective in this case. That we are discussing issues laden with opinions and imaginary baggage, and that we are always susceptible to our preconceived notions, our “local knowledge framework”, when judging meaning of words.

    What is normal/abnormal in a situation, what can for example be the expected level of displayed competence/incompetence and professionalism, in radically different contexts and countries.

    Going back to Goran, I very much believe he is consciously/subconsciously trying to following a well established path in the Swedish cultural context, a path that we have seen traversed several times in the last decades alone, where individuals have built or coupled their already established platforms to specific events very much like I believe Goran is trying to do now.

    And I would not be surprised (in relation to the above), if we soon also hear about a forthcoming book into the matter, but in this, time will tell.

    Nothing of this of course disqualifies Goran or should make people dismiss his opinions out of hand, but I think it is wise to bear in mind, that he might have strong ulterior motives, that guides and maybe influences his actions.

  23. Arbed,

    The UK Supreme Court too accepted this basic fact[Julian not charged], and formally corrected a slip about it made by Lord Phillips (aside to John Goss: revealing little Freudian slip that one was, wasn’t it?) when reading out the judgment. Perhaps Goran now feels he has a better grasp of law than the Supreme Court…?

    I don’t think the Supreme Court ruled on an whether Julian was charged (at a stage that is to be regarded as charged). Since you are so sure they did, point it out?

    It would be very strange that the Supreme Court in trying to decide if the Swedish process of issuing EAW was to be regarded as judicial authority. Since it was ruled in the High Court that Julian was charged I don’t think it was possible for the Supreme Court to change that ruling.

    I don’t think I am better than the Supreme Court. I think I agree with them. You are the odd man out.

  24. John Goss,

    Tell me if you know of anybody that has been extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of espionage or military crimes?

    Then, tell me of anybody being extradited from Sweden to an oppressive country, charged with espionge or military crimes?

    What history are you referring to?

  25. Lastbluebell,

    Are you trying to become another Muppet Show Shrink?

    Instead of just going off into space. Can you do this since Arbed disappeared. Can you check these two links and find where it says that Julian has not been charged?

    http://www.aklagare.se/Media/Nyheter/Varfor-kan-inte-aklagaren-forhora-Assange-i-Storbritannien–/

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

    [Mod/Clark: Edited to repair the first link.]

  26. Göran, regarding our exchange:

    “Show me the prosecutors decision that shows that she agrees with the viewpoint that Sofia Wilén never wanted Assange charged at all. Sorry, it is something you made up. Publish her decision and we can all have a look.”

    “No, Göran. I qualified my assertion – “so far as I know”. It is something I have read, in English, not something I made up. You read Swedish, I cannot. If you know of evidence, one way or the other, link to it so we can all see.”

    I see the source of my confusion now. I should have written that the first prosecutor also seemed to indicate that most of the allegations were a minor matter by dropping them.

    You wrote: “Truly. You appear thick sometimes. But I think your potential is far far greater than your present “thickness”.”

    Yes, I’m aware of this. Depression and emotional distress are making it difficult for me to think as well as I am accustomed to. This depletion of my mental skills is itself distressing, which adds to the problem. I’m sorry. I will do my best.

  27. Göran, you wrote:

    “Tell me if you know of anybody that has been extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of espionage or military crimes? Then, tell me of anybody being extradited from Sweden to an oppressive country, charged with espionge or military crimes?”

    This case is unique, and specific historical examples are probably inapplicable. But in any case, the US has increasingly perpetrated these types of abuses in recent years, and I think you should take such dangers seriously. As I wrote above, such threats may be relevant to Sofia Wilen as well as Julian Assange.

    Danger could also come from sources other than the public activities of the US government. There are many powerful groups whom Assange and Wikileaks have angered. Such groups are entirely likely to use or abuse Sofia Wilen or any other individual in their campaign against Wikileaks and Assange.

  28. Clark,

    I am pleased you are brave enough to say. Excuse me for being excessively rough. I’ll try be respectful.

    I have read what people have said about this case. It is not close to what actually happened. I always verify sources.

    I read Swedish. I can guarantee you that what you said was not true. I have heard that so many times it is silly, zombie fact. Keeps popping up.

    What you now say is closer. From memory Eva Finné the message was this. She believed Sofia’s story. She could anything in the interview that amounted to rape. She then checked if actions described could amount to sexual coercion, unlawful coercion, sexual molestation and molestation. She could not find support for any one of those accusations. Julian was cleared on all suspicions regarding Sofia. As you can see it isn’t even close to what you said.

    Now. What does this mean. To me it means that Irmeli Krans interview, that all tin-foil-hats, believe is a lesbian feminist setup is actually very good for Assange. If the interview should be done all over, it will be worse for Assange. To me that indicates Irmeli is *not trying to set up Julian.

    [* Mod/Clark: Edited to add “not”: See Göran’s correction below, 20 Sep, 2:15 pm.]

    I can say that Irmeli has tweeted and written comments on Facebook making me question her judgment. But that is another story. Since I can read this in the police report that is another piece that indicates that Anna was not in on Sofia’s interview.

    Thanks for reading

  29. This is one example Göran.

    http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition

    The CIA does not operate in pleasant friendly ways. It is capable of destabilising governments and one individual is child’s play to them. Take the case of Kurt Sonnenfeld, a US citizen now living in Argentina. He took the original footage for the US government which shows the official version of Ground Zero to be a lie. Here he is being interviewed by Voltaire Network.

    “Voltaire Network: They want you pretty badly for a “crime that did not happen”! How do you account for such doggedness? As a FEMA official, you must have been trusted by your government. At what point did the situation capsize?

    Kurt Sonnenfeld: In hindsight, I realize now that the situation had capsized some time before I actually became aware that it had capsized. Initially, the false accusation against me was completely irrational, and I was totally destroyed by it. It is incredibly difficult to have suffered the loss of someone you love to suicide, but to then be accused of it is too much to bear. The case was dismissed based on a mountain of evidence that overwhelmingly absolved me (Nancy, my wife, had left behind a suicide note and a journal of suicidal writings ; she had a family history of suicide ; etc.). The prosecution was 100% sure of my innocence before requesting the dismissal of charge.

    But the sustained incarceration even AFTER it was indicated that I was to be freed was what proved to me that something was happening under the surface. I was held in jail for FOUR MONTHS after my lawyers were informed that the case was to be dismissed and was finally released in June 2002. During that time, an amazing series of strange events began to occur. While still being held, I had a telephone conversation with FEMA officials in an effort to resolve the issue, but I realized that I was considered “compromised”. I was told it had been agreed that “the agency had to be protected”, especially in light of the upheaval that was threatening with the implementation of the “Patriot Act” and the expected usurpation that would come with the new Department of Homeland Security. After all the dangers I had risked, all hardship and difficulties I had endured for them for almost 10 years, I felt betrayed. It left a void in my soul.

    Because of their abandonment, I told them I didn’t have the tapes, that I gave them to “some bureaucrat” in New York, and that they would have to wait until I was released to retrieve any other documents in my possession. Soon after that conversation, my house was “seized”, the locks were changed, and men were observed by neighbors entering my house, though there is no record in the court of their entry, as would be required. When I was finally released, I discovered that my office had been ransacked, my computer was missing, and that my tape library in my basement had been dug through and several were missing. Men were constantly parked on the street near my house, my security system was “hacked” more than once, outdoor security lights were unscrewed, etc., to the point that I went to stay with some friends at their condo in the mountains, which was then ALSO broken into.

    Anyone who looks for the truth recognizes that there has been an amazing series of irregularities in this case and that an appalling injustice is being carried out on me and my loved ones. This intense campaign to return me to American soil is a false pretext for other darker motives.”

  30. Clark,

    To me that indicates Irmeli is NOT trying to set up Julian.

    To fast. I hope you got it

  31. John Goss,

    Sorry. Your example is not relevant

    Please read my two questions again

    Tell me if you know of anybody that has been extradited from Sweden to the US on charges of espionage or military crimes?

    Then, tell me of anybody being extradited from Sweden to an oppressive country, charged with espionge or military crimes?

    Look at the link again and spot the error?

  32. Arbed and Lastbluebell, where did you go?

    Hello. Helllloooooooo, Any body in there?

    I just asked you to back up Arbed’s claims. Are you doing a Craig Murray on me?

    I am off for a while

  33. Göran, or others,

    what about Sofia Wilen? Is there evidence to indicate her safety, or evidence that she could be being coerced or manipulated? The (unverified?) reports of her physical and on-line disappearance are worrying me.

  34. Göran, I have edited your 20 Sep, 2:13 pm comment as indicated in your correction at 2:15 pm. Please check that I got it right.

  35. Göran, John Goss’ comment is relevant. You are only considering possibilities that are lawful. John Goss is pointing out that unlawful possibilities also need to be considered.

    Also, you wrote: “I am off for a while”. Are you “doing a Craig Murray” on yourself? You are not the only one who has a life to lead beyond consideration of this case. As I’ve asked before, please be patient! :)

  36. Lastbluebell, thanks for the tip-off. that would be a really positive development because of all the suspicion surrounding the way the investigation was conducted from very early on. it may also tie-in to JA’s recent remark that the case could be dropped after an internal investigation into the investigations. this is a very hazy area indeed to me whether any such internal investigation has already taken place/begun. If not, the investigators need to be investigated. The world is entitled to know if there were any mistakes. This has a direct bearing on the trial, so its a requisite “preliminary” step.

  37. Clark,

    Thanks a lot. I am off for some 10 hours. I am not ignoring you. OK?

    Regarding Sofia. She has taken a hell of a lot of flak. As far as I know, she’s as allright that one can be under the circumstances. Haven’t heard anything bad.

  38. Göran, Thanks for informing us of your coming absence.

  39. Clark,

    The case with the Egyptians is not relevant. The process is not even remotely similar to an extradition. The courts were not involved.

    If you add first extradition from UK to Sweden and then seeking extradition from the US it is a whole other ballgame.

    The amount of shit the then government took from the Egyptians makes it extremely unlikely that another asylum seeker will ever be treated that way again.

  40. Goran’s attempt to translate Swedish legal concepts to UK (and therefore Commonwealth) concepts has failed miserably. He clearly has no understanding of the stages of taking a complaint, investigating it, laying charges and mounting a prosecution in the UK jurisdiction. He can speak all he likes about the Swedish system, but he knows zilch about the UK and, more importantly, why those stages exist in the forms that they do.

    For example, he has written of the Swedish practice of charging and then further questioning of the accused. Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute. There is no vague middle ground in which the police investigate further to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Any further investigation is purely to improve the prospects of a successful prosecution. Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal. Is this the purpose of wanting to question Assange after charging? For him to offer a confession or deal?

    Goran has certainly advanced some knowledge of the case, but he has done nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  41. Jemand,

    Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal

    Are you talking about England or Sweden?

  42. Arbed/anyone:

    Jemand says: “For example, he has written of the Swedish practice of charging and then further questioning of the accused. Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute. There is no vague middle ground in which the police investigate further to ascertain whether an offence has been committed. Any further investigation is purely to improve the prospects of a successful prosecution. Therefore, questioning the accused AFTER charging makes no sense unless the accused wishes to either confess or do a deal.”

    Is this true? Are charging and indictment perfectly synonymous? Or is an indictment a “formal” charge?

  43. Goran, i read your last post and tried to leave a reply. Couldn’t! Something to do with your captcha?

    Am still catching up with above conversation.

    But there’s something strange about the term ‘preliminary’ investigation, when there is no ‘final’ investigation. So it doesn’t sound preliminary at all, just one continuum of an investigation. Am i right?

  44. @Goran – “Are you talking about England or Sweden?”

    I’m talking about jurisprudence and your translation of concepts. What you claim to be Swedish charges make no sense when one considers normal and proper judicial processes, at least for those of us living in Commonwealth jurisdictions. Let me ask you this simple question – Has the Swedish prosecutor FORMALLY COMMITTED to prosecution? Don’t give me any bullshit mumbo jumbo or Swedish humour. Kindly answer the fucking question with YES or NO… Pretty please, with sugar on top.

  45. Göran, various powerful people in the US have declared Assange to be a “terrorist” or accused him of “aiding (or even being) the enemy”. His assassination has been called for, even drone attacks. I think it is important to consider all the possibilities; legal, illegal, borderline-legal (politically coerced distortion of legal definitions) direct attacks and/or abduction. I can quite understand why Assange would not submit to custody.

    “Regarding Sofia. She has taken a hell of a lot of flak. As far as I know, she’s as allright that one can be under the circumstances. Haven’t heard anything bad.”

    Obviously you would wish to restrict what information you would reveal, but some indication of how far you do know, or whether you have heard anything good, would be much appreciated. Absence of news could be bad news.

  46. Göran, you have heard something bad regarding Sofia Wilen; that she “has taken a hell of a lot of flak”. That is bad. Please clarify if you can.

  47. Lastbluebell

    “Nothing of this of course disqualifies Goran or should make people dismiss his opinions out of hand, but I think it is wise to bear in mind, that he might have strong ulterior motives, that guides and maybe influences his actions.”

    I had to re-visit the meaning of the word ulterior. You may be technically right that Goran is planning to write a book. But so what?

    By your definition above we are all guilty of allowing our motivations to influence our actions. Isn’t that normal?

  48. http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

    ” If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange, his personal presence is required in Sweden so that a trial can be held and any sentence enforced.”

    IF the perliminary investigation LEADS…” Present Tense: means preliminary investigation still ongoing to find if there is sufficient evidence.
    If in Sweden someone is charged before they know IF there is sufficient evidence, your legal system is really frightening.

  49. also here

    http://undermattan.com/files/2012/09/UC-ARKIV-120903171025.pdf

    to get the EAW:
    on page three “”Åtgärden att häkta Assange har till syfte att möjliggöra genomförande av förundersökningen och en eventuell lagföring”

    “”The operation to arrest Assange has been designed to enable the implementation of the preliminary investigation and possible prosecution”

    In the document sent to the British courts it said the decision to prosecute has already been taken.

  50. Shisei, you have to take into account that the preliminary investigation is at an ‘advanced’ stage. That is, based on what they know they are charging Assange who is not cooperating and can be seen to have fled Sweden. Admittedly the charge at this stage is one-sided because Assange has yet to give his full account but for that he has to cooperate. Charges can be dropped. Point is the police investigation completion requires Assange’s presence.

    At this late stage, i wonder if Assange can reasonably expect, even as an outcome of the diplomatic negotiations, a ‘room-service’ interview with the understandable to-and-fro required to cross check new representations with other multiple-witnesses. The only way to call it now is an impasse.

    Personally, i think Assange could’ve nipped this in the bud by first walking with SW on that fateful Friday or even the Thursday to an HIV test. f that didn’t work he should’ve finished off the interview process as early in September 2010 as feasible.

    He shouldn’t have believed his English lawyers if they told him they could get him off the hook of surrendering to Sweden.

  51. @Shisei

    Your posts suggest that the Swedish prosecutor misled the courts. Can we find more evidence of this possibility?

  52. “The amount of shit the then government took from the Egyptians makes it extremely unlikely that another asylum seeker will ever be treated that way again.” Goran

    I sincerely hope not.

    Perhaps the then government fully deserved “the shit” they received “from the Egyptians”, given “the shit” which the then government had delivered to “the Egyptians”.

    The USA and UK illegally invaded Iraq on false pretences and they lied to their people on a massive scale. Since then, they have continued to deploy measures which have destroyed any faith or trust in their likely adherence to judicial process without systemic and instrumentalised perversion of that process and , in the case of the USA, of its own constitution. Witness, black sites, rendition, infiltration of progressive groups, lying, corruption, the removal and/or fabrication of evidence, torture, prolonged detention without trial and so on. This is the backdrop of the past decade and to ignore it is to ignore reality.

    Now, it may be that Sweden is completely impregnable to such forces and from pressure from the hyperpower. Let us hope so. I would argue that recent history suggests that it would be wise to be wary. Whether or not Assange’s lawyers have been incompetant and/or have advised him badly is another matter. It boils down to whether or not one believes it likely that political leverage is active in relation to this case. Goran and many others do not believe it is and it would seem that they feel that it is Assange who has politicised it in order simply to escape justice; many others disagree. If there is political leverage, then it becomes a political trial. And that demands a whole different analysis.

  53. @Jemand
    In my opinion the British courts should have ruled the EAW is invalid because originally it was for questioning and for a “possible” prosecution.

  54. Shisei, i think Ny said that there existed ‘probable cause’ for her to prosecute based on what she had seen. She obviously could not speculate what impact Assange’s interview testimony would have. Sounds ok. But why are we going over the ground of the English courts again–thats well and truly over with.

  55. Villager

    For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.
    Ny didn’t care for a interrogation for at least 20 days where Assange was in Sweden. Everyone would think interrogating the suspect is one of the first things. This looks like a biased investigation that was meant to collect evidence against him from day one and it didn’t matter what he had to say anway.
    In my completely unlawerly opinion the prosecution could go to London (it is legal in contradiction to what Ny stated in December 2010) and clear the mess they are responsible for.

  56. @Shisei

    Yes, a possible prosecution also implies a possible non-prosecution which makes any discussion of it in the extradition case, moot. All that remained, therefore, was the certainty that Assange was to be questioned. Now that’s a lot of effort to drag someone in for questioning over an offence that pales when compared to heinous cases of sexual assault. If they were not certain that a prosecution were to proceed, why did the prosecutor not take the most convenient and economic course to determine whether there was a case to answer? That last question is asked so often and no one can answer it with any credibility.

  57. Suhayl Saadi, 20 Sep, 4:23 pm: Your last two paragraphs are excellent and I am strongly in agreement. But please clarify the first part, which I do not understand; I think there may be a typo in it.

    To me, it seems clear that this case is highly politicised. The involvement of highly political people in Sweden and the nearly-a-raid of the Ecuadorian embassy (probably inhibited only by activist witnesses) by the UK police indicate this. But even those who do not accept this as evidence of politicisation must surely accept the potential; this isn’t just anyone, it’s Julian Assange, the person most associated with Wikileaks.

  58. I’ve asked a couple of times earlier in the thread, no answers: What leverage does the Ecuador/Assange team have in their negotiations with the Brits/Sweden even USA (if any)? I can only see:

    1 Go to the ICJ.
    2 Delayed justice to ‘victims’ in Sweden. Anyone care to add…

    Perhaps Craig can get his ear to the ground in London. Any diplomats around who would care to speculate?

    Still wonder if some kind of public assurance by the Swedish Govt re extradition to the US could be forthcoming? Position’s are very hardened. Sort of thing that requires an elder statesman to come in and arbitrate. Who could that be? Are there any of that breed left. What about Kofi Anna? His wife’s a Swedish lawyer…that could be an advantage.

    Clark, and others, do you not think it will be fruitful to turn the discussion more forward-looking than debating with Goran the risks of Assange’s presence in Sweden, where his view-point is emphatically clear, despite the fact that he might be right and that many think he’s being dismissive.

  59. Oh, and of course, the systematic pursuit and persecution of whistleblowers and other prominent oppositional in the UK, Canada and the USA. Sooner or later, it seems that too many such public figures end up dead, discredited or in gaol. The intelligence services seem to view this as one of their major roles. It also serves to help justify their seemingly bottomless, ‘black’ budgets. There is nothing new about this, of course – think of the pursuit, attempts at fabrication/demonisation and persecution of miners’ leader, Arthur Scargill. It’s a very well-trodden course. Indeed, it would be very surprising if it were not occurring in relation to Assange/Wikileaks et al. One should expect it, treat it as normative. Their resources are so great, they can mobilise an army of journalists and bloggers as numinous reinforcement in the sphere of the public consciousness. This has occurred for decades – think of the number of labour correspondents on the MI5 payroll during the 1960s and 1970s in the UK.

  60. Clark, thanks. I was quoting from Goran’s post and saying that I hoped the Swedish Govt never again do what they did to those two guys who were rendered and tortured, etc., that whatever the then Swedish might have got in terms of opprobrium, etc. was fully deserved because what they were complicit in doing was far worse than anything they might have got in return.

  61. Shisei:

    “For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.”

    For Assange its not advanced, because he fled Sweden and hasn’t advanced it. The latter part of the sentence makes no sense.

    ” Ny didn’t care for a interrogation for at least 20 days where Assange was in Sweden. Everyone would think interrogating the suspect is one of the first things. This looks like a biased investigation that was meant to collect evidence against him from day one and it didn’t matter what he had to say anway.”

    I have already said, read the thred, the investigators need to be investigated. I found that bit about the police officer being sick laughable. There’s an old joke that reportedly did the rounds in Tel Aviv in one of the Arab-Israeli wars that Syria didn’t join the War because their pilot was sick.

    ” In my completely unlawerly opinion the prosecution could go to London (it is legal in contradiction to what Ny stated in December 2010) and clear the mess they are responsible for.”

    IMO its too late for that. Unless Ecuador provides guarantees to return him to Sweden if the it is decided that Assange is indicted. who knows that may be under discussion.

  62. Villager 4.13pm

    “Personally, i think Assange could’ve nipped this in the bud by first walking with SW on that fateful Friday or even the Thursday to an HIV test. f that didn’t work he should’ve finished off the interview process as early in September 2010 as feasible.”

    First of all, as has already been pointed out by Shisei but no harm in saying it again, it wasn’t Assange’s fault that he wasn’t interviewed in early September. It was the prosecutor who insisted to wait.

    Second, let’s not forget Ardin’s role. Had she not interfered, who knows, maybe Wilén and Assange would have worked it out on their own. But to Ardin it was more than just a private matter. She was, and is still, politically active, and had to consider her public image as well.

    It’s a pity people don’t know, or are warned, what will happen once they contact the police and mention they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted. As I understand it, it’s the police’s duty to investigate, and a prosecutor may then find it his or her duty to prosecute, no matter what the vicitm wants. If you don’t want that to happen you shouldn’t go to the police, because you lose all control over the situation. Add a world famous person and leaks to the press to the mess, and you’ll soon find yourself in a very undesirable situation. I’m surprised the so supportive press secretary Ardin didn’t see this coming and warned Wilén about how things might evolve.

    When Ardin contacted the press the following day (the 21st), before the arrest warrant was withdrawn and the fake condom collected from her flat, she’s reported to have said that the other woman wanted to file a rape complaint, and that they both stand by their stories. She was speaking for both of them, with Wilén’s consent or not. Either way Ardin seemed quite eager to spread the information that Wilén wanted to file a complaint for rape and that Ardin herself just wanted to support her. She said similar things to some of her friends who were later interviewed by the police. Today three of the four allegations are alleged crimes against Ardin.

    The article (in Swedish) can be found at http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/ and it doesn’t say a word about HIV tests. I haven’t seen an English version, but perhaps I’ll try to make my own amateur translation later tonight.

    Btw, I fully agree that the investigators need to be investigated. That should be done first, before any further insistence that he be extradited to Sweden. No reason to continue an already flawed process.

  63. Has he gone yet? Is it safe to come out?

    Ahhh, good.

    Villager 5.16pm

    Here are the UK Supreme Court’s official Agreeds Facts of the Case. That is, these are the facts and chronology which are undisputed – agreed by both the prosecution and the defence. They show that Assange did not flee Sweden and has not tried to avoid questioning at any point:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80912442/Agreed-Facts-Assange-Case

    Having waited in Sweden and asked the prosecutor to question him several times he received confirmation that he was free to leave on 15 September 2010. In fact, he waited even longer. On 27 September Assange flew (at 5.20pm from Arlanda airport) to Berlin for a pre-arranged meeting with Der Spiegel journalists and an Italian journalist to discuss the forthcoming publication of the Iraq War Logs. One of these journalists has gone public – her name is Stephani Maurizi and she writes for L’Espresso – about being with him the following day when he received news from his lawyer that an arrest warrant had been issued by Marianne Ny for his arrest (she had issued it at 2.45pm on 27 September so the Supreme Court accepts that he could not have known about it. What is odd is that he was not stopped from boarding his flight by Swedish border security). This journalist says she witnessed his shock and surprise and heard him say: “But why didn’t they question me while I was in Sweden? I was there for five weeks.”

    If you want to know exactly why he didn’t return to Sweden, despite the dates he’d offered in October as times when he could, there’s quite a story behind paragraph 18… If you’re intrigued, let me know and I’ll tell it.

    And, as regards Goran’s assertion that the UK High Court found that Assange had been charged, paragraphs 22 and 35 of the Agreed Facts make it quite clear that no, Assange has not been charged.

    For crystal clarity on the matter, I recommend paragraph 5 of this 14 June 2012 Supreme Court press release:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html

    Shisei 3.57pm – “In the document sent to the British courts it said the decision to prosecute has already been taken.”

    and Jemand 4.13 – “@Shisei – Your posts suggest that the Swedish prosecutor misled the courts. Can we find more evidence of this possibility?”

    Shisei’s got it exactly right. Marianne Ny lied to the British courts in that document. It’s included in my post 19 September 11.47am – all you have to do is a close reading between that document and the recent 24 August statement posted on the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s English-language site. My earlier post has some examples of ‘then vs now’ double-speak.

  64. “It’s a pity people don’t know, or are warned, what will happen once they contact the police and mention they’ve been raped or sexually assaulted. As I understand it, it’s the police’s duty to investigate, and a prosecutor may then find it his or her duty to prosecute, no matter what the vicitm wants. If you don’t want that to happen you shouldn’t go to the police, because you lose all control over the situation. Add a world famous person and leaks to the press to the mess, and you’ll soon find yourself in a very undesirable situation. I’m surprised the so supportive press secretary Ardin didn’t see this coming and warned Wilén about how things might evolve.” Orb

    I do take your point and of course as you know from my various posts, I am suspicious of various parties motives in all this. You are correct to state that of course the police must pursue such allegations, otherwise domestic abuse and rape victims, plus many victims of (other) violent crimes, would simply be intimated into silence by the perpetrators (as often they have been for years). In general – and I’m not talking here about malicious allegations – it takes a hell of a lot for such victims to muster up the courage to go to police in the first place. They often subsequently try to withdraw because of shame/fear or reprisals, etc. It is drummed into police officers and prosecutors to pursue such matters, and quite rightly so. You’re not suggesting that Ardin (let us hypothesise for a moment that there are no ulterior motives) ought to have told Wilen to keep quiet if Ardin actually thought a sexual crime had been committed?

  65. If anyone here is interested in knowing a bit more about the threat of onward extradition from Sweden to the US, here’s some of what I know.

    [Warning: Long post]

    I am very certain that the US will request extradition from Sweden if Assange gets there and Sweden will drop its sex investigation and comply. That’s just based on what I know about the Grand Jury investigation and debates in Congress about “off-shoring” Assange (yes, literally named in a detailed discussion on how to move the case via a FISA court ruling that he’s an “enemy of the US” and therefore out of the federal court system down to military jurisdiction in Guantanamo. It’s on C-Span and in the Congressional record) and suchlike (formal attempt to get Wikileaks designated as an FTO – Foreign Terrorist Organisation; formal request by Rep Peter King to the Secretary of State that she liaise with Sweden to get Assange extradited to the US; a letter from Dept of Justice General Counsel Harold Koh setting the grounds for indictment, etc – all in the public record; confirmation in June 2012 that there’s still about 16 federal and military law enforcement agencies currently working on the Wikileaks Grand Jury (from testimony at Manning’s hearings, etc)), and the geo-politics of Sweden’s position.

    Here’s those documents, plus a couple more:

    The “off-shoring to Gitmo” Congressional discussion – specifically about Assange

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2010-11-30/pdf/CREC-2010-11-30-pt1-PgH7743-8.pdf#page=1

    Rep Peter King (Chair of the Homeland Security Committee in Congress) letters to Attorney-General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scroll down):

    http://observer.com/2010/11/peter-king-on-why-wikileaks-should-be-declar

    Letter by US Dept of Justice General Counsel Harold Koh to Wikileaks – lays the groundwork for formal indictment:

    http://www.cfr.org/media-and-foreign-policy/legal-case-against-wikileaks/p23618

    Confirmation that the Grand Jury’s still active (2 July 2012) by Dean Boyd, DoJ spokesman:

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/fresh-call-on-assange-espionage-20120701-21b59.html

    Dianne Feinstein’s (Chair of Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee) 2 July 2012 call for Assange to be prosecuted for espionage:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-senator-calls-to-prosecute-assange-20120701-21b3n.html

    The 4 or 5 subpoenas to the Grand Jury already issued to Wikileaks-related people (remember the statute numbers mentioned in the subpoena here – I’ll come back to those):

    http://www.salon.com/2011/06/09/wikileaks_27/singleton/

    And there are all sorts of subpoenas still under seal that have been identified. Read what Birgitta Jonsdottir, the Icelandic MP who was involved in producing the “Collateral Murder” Wikileaks video, has to say about her own State Dept’s advice not to travel to the US, despite US assurances that all was fine, she had nothing to fear:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial

    Then there’s the Grand Jury case number – 10GJ3793 (guess what that 793 stands for…) And the FBI Wikileaks investigation file of 42,135 pages mentioned at Bradley Manning’s hearings, only 8,741 pages of which relate to Manning – per the US government prosecutor’s at his pre-trial hearings.

    And this is the list of US law enforcement agencies that it’s been confirmed are STILL working on the Wikileaks Grand Jury case:

    Department of Defense (DOD): including CENTCOM, SOUTHCOM, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); the US Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) for US Army Cyber Command and the 2nd Army and US Forces Iraq (USFI), as well as US Army Computer Crimes Investigative Unit (CCIU). Within that or in addition to that three military intelligence investigations.

    Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigations

    Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)

    Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence Executive (ONCIX), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

    Investigations into WikiLeaks have also been conducted by the House Oversight Committee, National Security Staff Interagency Committee and the PIAB (President’s Intelligence Advisory Board).

    Phew! That’s an awful lot of resources to expend if you have absolutely no intention of indicting someone…

    But… here’s the kicker. It’s a Congressional Research Service survey of available legislation with which to prosecute WikiLeaks:

    http://t.co/knzcVbPW

    A few points to bear in mind:

    1) who commissions the Congressional Research Service? That’s right, Congress. This survey was published in June 2012, I think. Not sure when it was commissioned exactly, but it does suggest there is still a very high-level push in the US to extradite Assange.

    2) Count the number of ostensibly ‘criminal’ rather than ‘political’ charges in there – computer-related crimes, theft of documentation, etc. A US extradition request will clear the Swedish judicial system – with all its checks and balances against extradition for ‘political’/death penalty crimes – with NO problems WHATSOEVER.

    Likewise, there is a way for the UK to agree to onward extradition to a third country AND avoid that decision going through judicial review in the UK courts. The Home Secretary (Theresa May, God help us…) simply has to waive the ‘specialty’ clause, Section 58, of the 2003 Extradition Act. It’s all in here:

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

    There ya go, all done at the stroke of a pen! How to achieve desired political outcomes by utilising our treasured, impartial and fair, legal and judicial systems.

  66. Oh, I forgot. One more point, about the risk of the death penalty applying. As I’ve said above, there’s plenty of ‘non-political’ offences in that Congressional Research Service survey for the US to choose for its extradition request from Sweden. But also remember how Bradley Manning was original charged with 8 offences and a few months later it was bumped up to 22? There’s nothing to stop exactly the same thing happening with Assange once he’s on US soil. Nothing.

    So, here’s the one that worries me – it’s 18 USC 794(a). It’s worth looking at the actual wording of the statute to see why Leigh’s libel that Assange said “they’re informants, they deserve to die” (Leigh’s allegation was that it was at a dinner in London on 21 July 2010 to discuss the redaction of the Afghan War Diaries – now completely refuted by Der Spiegel journalist John Goetz’ witness statement, who was at the dinner) is a potentially life-threatening one. 18 USC 794(a) says the death penalty can apply in conspiracy to commit espionage cases where there is “intent to harm” US informants. It’s on page 15 of the Congressional Research Service survey.

    http://t.co/knzcVbPW

  67. Here’s an attempt at an English version of the article I mentioned earlier, http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/kvinnan-anklagelserna-forstas-inte-iscensatta-av-pentagon-eller-nagon-annan/ published on 21 Aug 2010, 17 hours and 22 minutes after Expressen first released an article about Assange being sought for rape, and 8 minutes before Eva Finné withdrew the arrest warrant at 16.48. At 18.12 the fake condom was collected from Anna Ardin’s flat by police assistant Sara Wennerblom. Sara Wennerblom’s telephone interview with Anna Ardin took place between 11.31 and 12.20.

    There are two main tabloids, Expressen and Aftonbladet. Expressen seems to be reporting what Ardin has told Aftonbladet. The corresponding article in Aftonbladet can be found at http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article12435432.ab but it doesn’t say what time it was published.

    Expressen was first to write about the arrest warrant and rape/moletation allegations, at 23.18 on 20 Aug. There is an English translation at rixstep.com and a link to it in a previous comment (19Sep 11.19pm). The following is the article they published at 16.40 (updated at 16.56) on 21 Aug. I’m not a professional translator, but you’ll get an idea.

    The woman: “Allegations of course not staged by Pentagon or anyone else”

    Now one of the women speaks out.
    She says it began as consentual sex but ended as an assault.
    – The accusations against Assange are of course not staged by either Pentagon or anyone else, she says to the tabloid Aftonbladet.

    The woman is in her thirties. On Friday she was contacted by the other woman, who is between 20 and 30 years old. She said she had been raped by Assange.
    -I immediately believed her becuase I had had an experience similar to her story, the woman says to Aftonbladet.

    “We fully stand by our stories”
    Both women are to have met Assange during his stay in Sweden. Both are of the opinion that it was consentual sex ending in assault. The woman in her thirties chose to report him for sexual molestation, while the other woman went one step further.
    -The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my story as a testimony for her story, and to support her. Vi fully stand by the information we gave, the woman says to Aftonbladet.

    Refutes all conspiracy theories
    She refutes the claims that they first didn’t want to report Assange because they were afraid, and says Assange isn’t violent.
    She also refutes all conspiracy theories found online, that the allegations would be fabricated by Pentagon.
    – The allegations against Assange ar of course not staged by either Pentagon or anyone else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women and a problem to take no for an answer, she says to Aftonbladet.

    @Suhayl Saadi, No, of course I don’t mean to discourage anyone who really needs help from the police, but in less serious, non-violent situations it might be worth to think twice if it’s worth the consequences, because the actions of the police and prosecutor can be so out of proportion to what actually happened. For example, the accused may have to spend weeks in detention with limited means of communication before a trial that may never take place, in effect punished without being convicted of anything. In the Ardin/Wilén/Assange case that seems so out of proportion.

  68. Clark 2.26pm

    You’re worried about the welfare of Sophia Wilen. There is some information I can give you but I don’t want to in a public forum. Is there an email I can contact you at?

  69. Certainly. Click my name on my comment. Use the shorter address.

  70. Arbed, thanks for your 20 Sep, 8:55 pm comment. Phew. I’d not seen that much detail before.

    Bastards.

  71. Arbed, if it’s really sensitive, my GPG Public Key is here:

    http://www.killick1.plus.com/public-keys/clark-public-key

    I’ll confirm here when I’ve received your e-mail. Many thanks.

  72. Thanks Clark – writing to you now. Won’t be too long.

  73. Arbed, thanks, got that, going off-line now, bed time. Thanks.

  74. Jemand,

    “Anyone who is familiar with even basic jurisprudence knows that charging, or indicting, is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute.”

    Shortening
    “charging is a transition from investigation to a commitment to prosecute”

    Are you trying to argue that charge and indictment are the same?

    If so what is the name in England for the process before charge/indictment?

    And if you are very wrong on this, what will you do?

  75. Arbed,third time around

    “I’ve posted this before but here’s the Swedish Prosecution Authority’s most recent statement (24 August 2012) in English, so people can see for themselves that the Swedish Prosecution Authority themselves are saying that Assange has not been charged (and in fact, if you read between the lines, is nowhere near being charged: “and any subsequent interviews, as required…”[paraphrase, from memory]):”

    I’ve read the info from the prosecutors in the link. I am sorry, cannot find any information that is saying that Julian has not been charged. Can you please point it out to me?

    Just show the lines that says Julian has not been charged.

    http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/Media/News-in-English1/Why-is-the-prosecutor-not-able-to-question-Mr-Assange-in-the-UK-/

  76. Villager,

    “Is this true? Are charging and indictment perfectly synonymous? Or is an indictment a “formal” charge?

    Of course charge and indict are totally different things. You are right and Arbed is seriously ignorant, as usual.

    Arbed is just full of a lot of hot air. Would be a perfect hot air balloonist.

    Let’s see how long it takes for him to admit that he seriously wrong.

  77. ARBED ARBED ARBED ARBED

    Charge and indict are not the same as you foolishly believes.

    ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG

  78. Villager,

    But there’s something strange about the term ‘preliminary’ investigation, when there is no ‘final’ investigation. So it doesn’t sound preliminary at all, just one continuum of an investigation. Am i right?

    No. I’ve written two posts about this. It is very very difficult to understand the legal process if you translate the words literary. What I did in the first post was to show the similarities in Sweden’s and England’s procedures. Looks like you haven’t read it. Do.

    Preliminary investigation stage is corresponding the stage in England when a person is charged. When a suspect is in preliminary investigation it is the same as charged with a crime.

    First paper was just making the translations showing that Julian Assange’s lawyers looked in dictionaries rather than comparing processes.

    Second paper is from professor Wong who defines the Pros. Auth. view. In the second paper it is very easy to see when a person is charged in Sweden according to European law.

    Professor Wong

    “The distinction between the overall process of prosecution (lagföring) and the actual act of prosecuting a person through indictment may be a source of confusion for foreign lawyers who only have access to translated texts of the Swedish legislation.”

    Think you get it now. Read the papers it will save you lot of time

    1st paper to read
    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/julian-assange-is-charged-there-is-no-doubt-about-it/

    2nd to read
    http://samtycke.nu/eng/2012/09/was-assanges-legal-team-incompetent/

  79. Assange, ironically, is now a prime example of someone who is rich, powerful and elusive enough to avoid proper scrutiny and justice, something which is quite opposite to the values behind the important work of his WikiLeaks.

  80. Arbed,

    Oh, I forgot. One more point, about the risk of the death penalty applying. As I’ve said above, there’s plenty of ‘non-political’ offences in that Congressional Research Service survey for the US to choose for its extradition request from Sweden. But also remember how Bradley Manning was original charged with 8 offences and a few months later it was bumped up to 22? There’s nothing to stop exactly the same thing happening with Assange once he’s on US soil. Nothing.

    You legal turkey. Can you just answer two questions? Just two?

    Was Bradley Manning extradited?

    If he wasn’t, do you agree that what you write is rubbish?

  81. Shisei:

    “For Assange it is not at an advanced stage: he hasn’t been heard yet after the case has been closed.”

    The preliminary investigation is in advanced stage as far as I know. Contradict me please.

    The only remaining person is the man himself.

  82. Göran

    Only a biased investigation can be advanced without the statement of the suspect.

  83. Is the term indict used commonly in UK legal processes, or it just charge, or both?

    Anyone?

  84. Arbed,

    And, as regards Goran’s assertion that the UK High Court found that Assange had been charged, paragraphs 22 and 35 of the Agreed Facts make it quite clear that no, Assange has not been charged.

    You have already demonstrated that you don’t have any knowledge of the English criminal procedure. You cannot discriminate between charge and indict. You are a legal turkey. Your knowledge of the Swedish criminal procedure is even less.

    You read “Agreed facts and Issues” and you pick out words that you do not have any idea of what they mean. And you try to create arguments not even knowing that the “Agreed facts and Issues” does not in any way change the High Court ruling. What the hell is wrong with you?

    You arguments are absolutely worthless. Give up. You are just demonstrating your total ignorance. And you believe that you in any way can contradict or argue with me. To hell with you.

    22 Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.

    35 Statements issued by the Respondent throughout September, October and November confirmed that the investigation was ongoing and that no decision had been taken to charge or prosecute. Investigations were being undertaken and witnesses were interviewed.

    I will use the paragraphs you pointed to explain some important things that you do not know and I suspect you never will.

    What is of interest in para 22 and 35 is that the people who wrote them aren’t that familiar with Swedish Criminal Procedure either but they seem like geniuses compared to you. How do I know? In the Swedish Criminal Procedure a “decision to charge” does not exist. Never has in 100 years. In order to make the paragraphs comprehensible you have to take out “charge or” from both paragraphs. I’m not sure if get anyway.

    No decision to prosecute has been taken. Get it?

    I put an excerpt from Professor Wong’s article below if you can read. But please don’t touch the keyboard any more.

    “Clearly, being ‘charged with a criminal offence’ cannot mean the act of prosecution according to Swedish domestic law. The concept has an autonomous meaning, and the Swedish Supreme Court has had an opportunity to examine at which stage of the criminal proceeding in Sweden, a person would be considered as being ‘charged’ according to the autonomous meaning of the ECHR. There is no doubt that – at the latest – a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds. The question is whether a person may be considered as being ‘charged’ at an earlier stage. In a case concerning the appointment of a public defence counsel, the Supreme Court stated in general that a person should be treated as ‘charged with a criminal offence’ when ‘the authorities have taken some measure with the consequence that a person’s situation is substantially affected by the fact that there is a criminal suspicion against him’.”

    How a person would be considered being charged with a crime has nothing to do with a decision to charge. Get it Moron.

    a person will be considered ‘charged’ when he or she is suspected of crime on reasonable grounds. Do you understand?

    Now comes the interesting question that I doubt you can answer correctly?

    Is Julian suspected of a crime on reasonable grounds?

    The answer is NO.

    An arrest warrant is issued for his arrest because he is suspected of a four crimes on probable cause. A higher suspicion and a stronger legal measure.

    And what does that mean pinhead?

    Is Julian Assange considered to be charged with a crime.

    YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

    Julian Assange’s lawyers are ignorant of the Swedish legal system. It was no surprise they lost in three courts. And most of Julian Assange’s supporters are ignorant too. But you stand out as the worst of them all.

    I just wish you could stand in my shoes just once, because then you would see what a pathetic idiot you are.

  85. Göran

    The line you want from Arbed that says Assange is not yet charged is (at least for non-Swedes)

    “If the preliminary investigation leads to a finding that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr Assange…”

    IF IF IF IF IF IF

  86. “or it just charge”….read ‘or is it just charge’…

    Viewed holistically, boy is the situation Assange in complex. No easy solutions. Perhaps that’s why everyone’s grappling with it. What will be, will be. That applies to all of us.

    I do feel sorry for Assange not being able to see the light of day. And wondering if, how and when he ever will.

    I’m surprised there isn’t a signature campaign in the UK to pressure the Govt to allow him safe passage to Ecuador. Is there insufficient public opinion support?

    Arbed, would the risks of extradition to the US be any lesser from the UK? (hypothetical question)

  87. Göran

    you should apoligize to Arbed. Your post 4:09 is incredibly rude.

  88. @Goran

    This relates to UK/Commonwealth and mostly US. 

    A charge (noun) is a process in which the police will formally accuse you of a specific crime, usually in the police station, with an explicit understanding that the matter WILL be prosecuted. Police will NOT charge someone unless they intend to prosecute. The charge represents a decision made AFTER an investigation when enough evidence, including witness statements, gives them confidence that an offence has been committed and a prosecution can succeed. If there is any further investigation, it usually supports the charge. Police do not want to lay charges if they think there is any reasonable possibility of having to later withdraw the charges. Flip-flopping is BAD practice.

    The accused MUST be present to be charged. The accused is questioned and given an opportunity to provide a statement PRIOR to being charged. Charges in absentia do not make sense as the accused might be dead, the wrong person or have something to say that undermines the charge. Withdrawing and reinstituting charges is BAD practice, police only want to issue charges ONCE. They can only prosecute the charge in court ONCE. When charged, the accused must be brought to trial within a reasonable period of time otherwise a prosecution can FAIL.

    When charged, a person will be either remanded or bailed to appear as soon as possible before a court which determines whether the charge is valid including all the formal details. A committal or other hearing might be scheduled.

    An indictment is the same thing as a charge. The term is used in a different jurisdiction (court) or for a different crime (associated with a court) usually in the US. There is no significant differences for the purposes of this discussion. It’s clearer to use “charge”.

    There are minor variations to the above depending on the offence and the jurisdiction, but in every case in the US and Commonwealth, a charge is a statement to an accused that he WILL be prosecuted, notwithstanding some unexpected eventuality or offer to do a deal.

    The important point in relation to the use of the term “charge” is that it means the prosecution has  COMMITTED TO PROSECUTING the charge and cannot easily or inexplicably withdraw it. Unless of course it is in some flunky country that has a shitty justice system.

    I wrote this in a hurry, so if anyone with more info would kindly fill in the gaps, or tidy up the wording, please do.

  89. Shisei 9.08am

    Oh, don’t worry. I think it actually helps people here see the wood from the trees, don’t you?

    For fun sometimes, I idly muse about that psychological concept called projection: where the things you say out loud – what comes out of your mouth – are really the things you are trying to tell yourself (or your subconscious is); the things you need to hear yourself.

    Personally, I don’t think you can win an argument by taking two words out of someone else’s citation (paragraph 22 of the Supreme Court Agreed Facts – note, that means agreed by the Swedish Prosecution Authority) and saying “there, now it works”. And then entirely skip over the source they provide for “crystal clarity” – paragraph 5 here:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/julian-assange-v-swedish-prosecution-authority.html

    In full, so nobody misses it this time:

    “Ms Rose has raised a further point which has validity. Para 83 of the judgment refers to offences of which Mr Assange “stands charged”. This is not accurate as charges have not yet been brought against Mr Assange. The judgment will be corrected to read “offences in respect of which his extradition is sought”.

    Note to Villager: You were asking whether the words ‘charge’ and ‘indict’ are synonymous. Yes, they are – the only difference is British English vs US English. From the OED:

    Definition of indict
    verb
    [with object] chiefly North American

    formally accuse of or charge with a crime: his former manager was indicted for fraud

    Thesaurus entry for indict:

    Main Entry:
    indict  [in-dahyt] Show IPA
    Part of Speech: verb
    Definition: accuse
    Synonyms: arraign, censure, charge, criminate, face with charges, finger*, frame*, impeach, incriminate, inculpate, prosecute, summon, tax
    Antonyms: absolve, acquit, exonerate

    Hope that helps.

  90. Thanks for clearing that up Arbed, yes it seems you’re right i generally associate the word indict with the US.

    Having lived in the UK for a decade and a half over varying time periods, somehow i recall it is the word charge that generally held currency.

  91. Villager 4.36am

    Ooh, you’ve asked the big one there. Ok, I’ll have a go…

    So many people point out that extradition would probably be easier from the UK than Sweden – it’s seen (at least by UK citizens) as more of a poodle to the US; its extradition treaty is more lopsided in favour of the US, etc.

    There is, of course, the issue of the US/Sweden bilateral treaty having a Temporary Surrender clause which the US/UK treaty doesn’t. However, many people argue that there is something similar in the UK one. Personally, I don’t know how much validity that assertion has so, for argument’s sake, let’s say there is and discount that as a reason per se to argue why extradition via Sweden is easier than direct from the UK. (I want to stress, though, I’m only taking the Temporary Surrender clause issue out of the equation here to make a point; it could well be a valid factor.) So, assuming a legal equivalence on what could be called the ‘interruptability’ of an unrelated criminal investigation/ prosecution for the purposes of extradition for something else entirely, you’re left with assessing the differences in the quality and rigour of the respective justice systems. Which we’re all having a lovely time exploring on this thread…

    Some might argue that what we’re learning here about how the Swedish justice system works in practice does indicate it’s a bit more mallable than the UK’s. But those of us who watched closely as the Assange case progressed through the UK courts and were horrified at the way the courts’ interpretation of the 2003 Extradition Act totally mashed all the protections of defendants’ rights built into it (in order to push a politically desired result through) would probably consider that a moot point too.

    A second point is that onward extradition from Sweden would require the UK’s consent, ie it would require the agreement of two nations rather than just one. This is much less of a bar than people realise as the decision could be the sole decision of the Home Secretary, and hers alone. The 2003 Extradition 2003 has a protection built into it called ‘specialty’ under Section 58, that is, it ensures an individual can only be extradited to one country – in the case of Assange, Sweden. Once legal proceedings in that country have been completed, the individual is given a 45-day leave, during which they are free to go where they want. Assange should, therefore, be free to travel to any other state – including the UK, Ecuador or Australia – once legal proceedings against him are completed in Sweden.

    However, specialty can be waived by the country granting the initial extradition request – in this case the UK – thereby allowing an individual to be extradited to a third country. This is the guarantee – that the Home Secretary will NOT waive specialty – which Ecuador seems unable to persuade the UK to give. Some commenters have argued that any decision by the Home Secretary to agree Assange’s onward extradition from Sweden to the US would be subject to judicial review in the UK courts (as if, judging by how they’ve behaved so far in his case, that could offer any comfort at all…). Not necessarily so, according to the fine detail of Section 58 of the Act:

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

    So, here’s my personal view on the “wouldn’t it be easier from the UK than Sweden” question, and it’s purely a matter of ‘politics’.

    I believe the reason the US didn’t/doesn’t apply direct to the UK for extradition is that:

    1) they hadn’t had time to prepare a case for extradition that was strong enough to bear scrutiny by the time the Swedish had already got theirs in, ie. it was Cablegate – published 27 November 2010 – which really got the US upset; the Swedish EAW was already issued on 26 November.

    And 2) for the US to then ask Britain for extradition when there’s already an opposing one in existence would put their ‘greatest ally’ in a really awkward position politically, having to choose between the two: go with Sweden and piss off your “special relationship” ally, the US; or go with the US request and piss off the huge percentage of your voting public who are opposed to the UK/US extradition treaty anyway (it’s HATED here in England) and 50% of your population (women). Plus putting one extradition request on top of another would bung the whole thing up for YEARS in the courts. That’s why it’s not being done from Britain – BECAUSE the UK is the ‘greater ally’.

    Does that make sense?

  92. PS. “and 50% of your population (women)”

    Sorry, I didn’t put that very clearly. What I meant was that I think British women overwhelmingly would like the allegations answered (well, everyone would, actually), but most simply can’t get their heads around why on earth the prosecution is refusing to do the questioning. They don’t see or know about the complexities of the Swedish system over here, they just look at it from the perspective of how the British system works, obviously. What would get 50% of the population/women really irate, though, is if the UK govt was asked to choose between a US and a Swedish extradition and the government chose against the one dealing with crimes against women; that would have a very potent symbolism, don’t you think?

  93. Goran,

    I have seen you on these threads very closely now, but i haven’t seen you lose your shirt as you are doing with Arbed.
    What’s up? Are you just having a bad day? If so, that’s understandable, you’re human after all. Plus maybe you’re a bit shortchanged on your sleep?

    More to the point, please reconsider whether Julian is actually charged. Or as a commenter on your blog said he is ‘provisionally charged’? There seems to be some validity to that. Now you may suggest that under the Swedish system he is charged. At what point did he become charged? Was it when Ny declared that she was ready to prosecute based on the evidence supporting probable cause, subject to further interviewing Julian? That juncture was only reached because he was not in Sweden. Had he been, he would not have been ‘charged’ in the middle of the to-and-fro of interviews, would he? She would’ve waited till all the evidence was in and weighed.

    In order for the EAW to stand up, she stated what i alluded to above. If she hadn’t perhaps it wouldn’t have. She had to make a call publically at that time, but it doesn’t have to add-up to a charge.

    So please reconsider. I hope you are not overreaching yourself.

  94. Goran, an afterthought, anyway, why is it so important whether Assange is charged or not?

  95. CE 2.35am

    Can I ask where you get the idea that Assange is rich and powerful please?

    According to a Rolling Stone interview, he’s completely bankrupt. From pages 5 and 6 of that interview:

    What forms has the pressure taken?
    My personal bank account was shut down, and some of our people have also had their personal bank accounts closed. Many people have lost their jobs – even those who were quite indirectly connected. The person who registered our Swiss domain name lost their job when Bloomberg reported their name on the record. One of the board members of the German charity that collects donations for us lost their security contract with the Swiss stock exchange. The stock exchange even put in writing that the cause was his affiliation with us. The Tor Project, which protects people around the world from being spied on or censored, lost some $600,000 to the U.S. government, as a result of one of their people, Jacob Appelbaum, having filled in for me once at a conference in New York. This type of indirect pressure has been applied to a great many people.

    How expensive has the legal battle been?
    We have many legal cases. This personal case, the Swedish extradition case, I have to pay for myself. I don’t think that is right. Actually, I think the organization should pay for it.

    Why?
    It is unquestionable that the case has been politicized as a result of my role in the organization. However, to avoid the attack that the funding would be spent on this case, which is effectively used by our opponents to assassinate my character, it’s completely separate. Which means that I’m now completely bankrupt as a result.

    Completely bankrupt?
    Yeah. There have been all sorts of strange complications, such as that the previous lawyers managed to get hold of all my book advances and keep them. So I have not received a cent from any publicity that I’ve done.

    There’s a rumor that you have £3.3 million in your bank account that you’re keeping.
    Yeah, sure. Our opponents like to spread these rumors to deny us our donations.

    So that’s not true?
    It’s absolute nonsense. They spread rumors that I’m living in a mansion, they spread rumors that I’m homeless. Two years ago, fabricated documents were spread saying that I traveled first class and lived in a castle in South Africa, and I’ve never even been to South Africa. If you want to attack an organization, how do you attack it? You attack the cash flow and leadership. The character assassinations are dangerous, but taken as a whole, they’re absurdly comical. We have, on the one hand, some 700,000 references to me being an anti-Semite, and on the other hand, some 2.5 million references to me being a member of the Mossad. I’m accused of everything from being a cat torturer to being a rapist to being overly concerned about my hair to being too rich to being so poor that my socks are dirty. The only ones I have left now to look forward to are some kind of combination of bestiality and pedophilia.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/julian-assange-the-rolling-stone-interview-20120118#ixzz276DhK2CO

    Personally, I tend to believe this. It’s the UK taxpayer who’s footed the bill for all the Swedish Prosecution Authority/Crown Prosecution Service costs for an extradition case which lasted 18 months. Assange had to pay all his own costs. Apparently, the $80,000 in the Swiss bank account that was Assange’s personal ‘fortune’ from work prior to Wikileaks got returned, but I guess that would be swallowed by his legal costs. And I think he got about £450,000 as an advance on the autobiography deal but that went straight into an escrow account held by Mark Stephens’ legal firm. Assange fell out with Stephens when he found out their £650,000 bill was vastly overcharging him, then Stephens snaffled the escrow account. Jennifer Robinson left Stephens’ firm in protest, but continues to work for Assange pro bono. Garzon has said he’s working pro bono too. I don’t know if Michael Ratner is as legal counsel over in the States, but as Ratner is President of the Centre of Constitutional Rights over there, it’s possible. The ACLU does a lot of pro bono cases, I think.

    Then Assange fell out with the autobiography’s publishers because he wanted to totally restructure the book after the first draft, and thought he had their agreement to this, but they went ahead with publishing the rough draft they’d receive from Andrew O’Hagan’s (the ghost writer) researcher. And Mark Stephens got the escrow money.

    Assange seems to fall out with a lot of people. Must be a very awkward cuss, I suppose. Then again, he does seem to get shafted a lot.

    He can’t have made any money personally from Wikileaks. It’s a non-profit surviving on donations from the public. And they don’t sell the stuff they publish; all the media partner deals have involved no money at all. I’ve seen somewhere that Assange has said he has no objection in principle to Wikileaks either buying or selling its info (newspapers and journalists do that all the time, after all) but they haven’t done so far.

    And powerful? As an individual? What, like a politician or something, you mean?

  96. Arbed,

    Yes it makes loads of sense. Thank you for your responses and time.

    What is your take on Assange’s UK legal team in those EAW hearings. Do you think they argued strongly and did the best job anyone could?

    Do you think Ny’s statement that she was ready to prosecute, subject to or if…etc etc, was deliberately manipulated, despite all the early evidence in the public domain pointing to a weak case, in order to secure enforcement of the warrant? Did she overextend herself? Could she in all honesty have made that declaration BEFORE interviewing Assange further?

    I’m trying to understand your comment of “mashed all the protections of defendants’ rights built into it (in order to push a politically desired result through) …”

    Thanks

  97. Just breaking in to add an interesting website from the Pirate Party rep, which gives quite a lot of sobering background on the flavour of modern Sweden. Have also been reading Stieg Larrson’s journalism; much the same.

    http://falkvinge.net/

  98. Nice to see you TC. off for a bit now…

  99. Villager 11.58am

    Hi, to answer your questions in order:

    1) I didn’t think Ben Emmerson (now in the running to be the new Head of the European Court of Human Rights – not sure if he got the job, to be honest, but he was frontrunner for it, so he’s not shaky by any means) did a fantastic job at the High Court – but, then again, not nearly as bad as the actual High Court judgment which resulted makes it appear. The tortuous legal knots the judges go through to make ‘dual criminality’ work (only as regards the description of the allegations as written [by Marianne Ny, remember] on the face of the EAW, remember – that’s important to note) are a wonder to behold. Example: they did try to make it look as if they had studied the underlying evidence (although, officially, EAW law – based on an imperative to place “mutual recognition” of European justice systems as equivalent as far as possible – they’re barred from taking any underlying evidence into account) by introducing (at paragraph 94 of the judgment, if you want to look it up) the fact that the forensic report suggested the tear in the “deliberately torn” was NOT cut with scissors or a knife and was most likely the result of wear and tear. As we know now, the judges have totally ‘overlooked’ the rather more startling forensic result that said condom had no DNA, male or female, on it. Makes you wonder exactly what document they were looking at, doesn’t it? Did Ny withhold the page with the DNA result on it from the file she submitted to the UK court? We don’t know, of course, because we don’t know what’s in the evidence file she submitted to Assange’s defence team. Bjorn Hurtig hinted in his testimony (when told by Clare Montgomery (CPS, for Sweden) that the reason Assange’s presence in Sweden for questioning might be needed so that the prosecutor could, for example, take a DNA sample to match to forensic evidence of the condom) “well, that depends if it’s ever been worn”… But, more to the point, in the judgment this paragraph 94 is buried in the middle of paragraph after paragraph looking at various precedents in UK law about rape cases involving ‘deception’. The judges are seriously arguing that ‘deception’ could be the result of wear and tear? Do you see what I mean?

    Dinah Rose was brilliant. And the legal submission to get the Supreme Court case re-opened was superb, a really, really watertight argument based on existing ECJ rulings, plus lots of other good stuff. The Supreme Court rejected on very dubious grounds, in my view. And, of course, Marianne Ny tried to get the CPS to get the Supreme Court to cancel the 14-day window they’d given Assange to appeal to Europe (she asked for it to be reduced to ZERO days) and have him taken into custody in the UK straightaway. Doubtless she did this as soon as she’d had a chance to read that submission to get the SC case re-opened (you remember it was submitted on 13 June and the SC refused it 9am the following morning, the 14 June).

    Try to block someone’s only remaining avenue – and legal right – to appeal to Europe? No wonder Assange fled to the Ecuadorian embassy as soon as he heard this. Persecution, political or otherwise, is about right – that’s what I’d call it too.

    Answer to your second question is simple. Yes, she did deliberately manipulate her statement to the UK court. (Again, good example: You have a forensic report in your possession on 25 October 2010 which shows there is no DNA, male or female, on evidence presented by one of the complainants. Do you a) think this may bring the credibility of that complainant’s story into question, or b) write up all that complainant’s allegations on an EAW extradition warrant issued on 26 November as “sexual assault”, “unlawful coersion” and “sexual molestation”?).

    No, she could NOT have legitimately put forward the idea that “criminal proceedings” were advanced enough for her to decide on prosecution BEFORE questioning Assange. Here’s the relevant testimony by two witnesses for the defence at the District Court. There’s no transcript of the proceedings, unfortunately, so these are just copied from live tweets made by Federico Cocco from the courtroom on the day:

    Brita Sundberg-Weitman (former Swedish judge): the decision to prosecute can only be taken after the preliminary investigation has closed.
    and
    Sven-Erik Ahlem (former Swedish chief prosecutor): The last thing that happens as part of the preliminary investigation is that the suspect has a right to see all the material collected and also comment on whether he/she wants to hear more witnesses.
    JJ (Assange junior lawyer): The prosecutor cannot make the decision on whether to prosecute until then?
    SEA: That’s correct, unless there’s a risk of prescription (?)

    Despite that evidence, the District Court Justice Riddle bought Marianne Ny’s statement wholesale in his judgment. But I think that says more about the behaviour of the UK courts in this case. What do you think?

  100. Arbed 20/09/12 @ 8.55 p.m. What an excellent piece of research my friend. It is a lot of reading but clearly shows the United States of America, that great bastion of democracy, is after the closure and outlawing of Wikileaks and the imprisonment of its founder. I said in an earlier comment that Hague had already done the deal with the US. There will be no request for extradition. The FBI will just arrest him, and Sweden will turn a blind eye, as the UK did when complicit in MOSSAD’s arrest of Mordechai Vanunu. No wonder Hague was pulling his hair (singular) out when Assange outwitted him!

1 4 5 6 7 8 20

Leave a Reply

Basic formatting: <strong>Bold</strong>   <em>Italics</em>  <blockquote>Indented/quoted</blockquote>  <a href="http://example.com/link">Link text</a>

Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud