So Where is the Swedish Warrant? 334


If the Swedish allegations against Julian Assange were genuine and not simply a ruse to arrest him for extradition to the United States, where is the arrest warrant now from Sweden and what are the charges?

Only the more minor allegation has passed the statute of limitations deadline. The major allegation, equivalent to rape, is still well within limits. Sweden has had seven years to complete the investigation and prepare the case. It is over two years since they interviewed Julian Assange in the Ecuadorean Embassy. They have had years and years to collect all the evidence and prepare the charges.

So where, Swedish prosecutors, are your charges? Where is your arrest warrant?

Julian Assange has never been charged with anything in Sweden. He was merely “wanted for questioning”, a fact the MSM repeatedly failed to make clear. It is now undeniably plain that there was never the slightest intention of charging him with anything in Sweden. All those Blairite MPs who seek to dodge the glaring issue of freedom of the media to publish whistleblower material revealing government crimes, by hiding behind trumped-up sexual allegations, are left looking pretty stupid.

What is the point of demanding Assange be extradited to Sweden when there is no extradition request from Sweden? What is the point in demanding he face justice in Sweden when there are no charges? Where are the charges from Sweden?

The answer to that is silence.

Sweden was always a fit-up designed to get Assange to the USA. And now they don’t need it, so Sweden has quietly gone away. All the false left who were taken in by the security services playing upon a feminist mantra should take a very hard look at themselves. They should also consider this.

If you seriously put forward that in allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty, you are handing an awesome power to the state to lock people up without proper defence. The state will abuse that awesome power and fit people up. The Assange case shows us just that. And it is not the only case, currently, as everyone in Scotland should realise.

But there is more. If you believe that any sexual accusation against a person should be believed and automatically and immediately end their societal respectability, you are giving power to state and society to exclude dissidents and critics from political discourse by a simple act of accusation. That power will be used and abused by the security services.

In the case of the allegation in Sweden that did fall through the statute of limitation, the accusation was that during the act of consensual sex Julian Assange deliberately split the condom with his fingers, without consent. I quite agree that if true, it would amount to sexual assault. But the split condom given to Swedish police as evidence had none of Assange’s DNA on it – a physical impossibility if he had worn it during sex. And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA. So tell me again – we must always believe the accuser?

For once, I agree with the Blairites that should a warrant arrive from Sweden that Swedish request should be prioritised for extradition over the US request, not least because rape is much the more serious crime. As the only reason Julian Assange ever claimed asylum was that he saw the Swedish allegations as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the US, I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance, the US extradition point being overtaken.

But do not hold your breath. No warrant is going to come. The states that coordinated so carefully his arrest and detention, timed with the Muellergate release and the demented Ecuadorean government lies about faeces on walls, don’t need the Swedish angle now.

I ask again. Where is the warrant from Sweden? Are there still people who cannot see the Swedish allegations for the CIA ruse that they always were?

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 


334 thoughts on “So Where is the Swedish Warrant?

1 2 3
  • Marie

    i agree with you in that there is no extradition request from Sweden and that Assanges illegal detention aims at silencing him forever.

    However, i strongly disagree with your position regarding feminism.

    First of all, you don’t have to argue in an anti-feminist fashion in order to support Julian Assange. Though he might be anti-feminst himself, as implied by Raffi Khatchadourian in his article in the New Yorker, but it’s hard to judge without knowing him personally. Despite being feminist, i support Julian Assange.

    For me, your article lacks awareness of all those women and men who suffer from real sexual assault. It is difficult enough for them to speak up and talk about what happened to them. Experiencing sexual assault is horrible, and your article should recognise this more.

    I was unable to share your article on Twitter because of this. I would have liked to share it, as it otherwise contains plausible logical arguments.

    Of course, there are also people who accuse falsely, which is a severe crime. But compared to the numbers of survivers of sexual assault, the number of false accusers is extremely small.
    I don’t think that Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen deliberately caused this whole case; and if they had known the consequences beforehand, they most probably would have refrained from going to the police. To my mind, it is just not fair to blame the two of them for what happened. I would rather blame Swedish authorities, and definitely blame the CPS.
    I suppose, the two women did not want to report him to the police in the first place and got roped into the case, similar to Assange. Of course, the consequences for him are probably much more fatal and devastating.

    You write about feminist mantras and a supposed ideology that concerning allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty. I can assure you, that in everyday life it’s the other way around which causes incredibly painful situations for the women concerned.
    I do understand your criticism regarding the position of certain journalists like e.g. Peter Nowak, which i share by the way, maybe for slightly different reasons. But please take into account the reality of the majority of women.
    Unfortunately, i don’t know much about the Swedish legal system, but the little I know makes me happy that at least there is one country in the world that takes women seriously and supports them.
    So it is possible and even advisable to support Assange without blaming the Swedish legal system and feminism.

    Thinking strategically, it would be beneficial for Assange to have more feminist supporters. Drawing the public’s attention to the fact that he is strongly supported by feminsts makes it more difficult for mainstream media to portray him as a sex criminal. So i would seek backing by womens’ rights activists.

    • John2o2o

      “You write about feminist mantras and a supposed ideology that concerning allegations of sexual assault, the accuser must always be believed and the accused must automatically be presumed guilty. I can assure you, that in everyday life it’s the other way around which causes incredibly painful situations for the women concerned.”

      I very strongly disagree.

      And I personally consider modern feminism to be pernicious and basically a cover for misandry.

  • NotACleverSophist

    «we must always believe the accuser?»

    There is a clever sophistry that reframes that question: that in crimes against women the victim is not the accuser, but the witness, and as a witness she is entitled to the presumption of innocence (save contrary proof) from the crime of being a false witness, while the abuser’s presumption of innocence (save contrary proof) is eliminated by the proof of guilt given by the witness. So unless the witness is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a false witness, their testimony is proof of the guilt of the criminal.

    But the real argument used most often is that a conviction rate of criminals against women of anything less than 100% is an apology for crimes against women, and the only way to have a conviction rate of 100% of the criminals is to always convict.

    In the end what really matters is that older women are a crucial constituency, and they want absolute safety at any cost to someone else.

    • BrianFujisan

      NotACleverSophist
      April 29, 2019 at 00:25

      I don’t Quite understand your last sentence..

    • Paul Barbara

      @ NotACleverSophist April 29, 2019 at 00:25
      Cases have to be taken individually. In this case, we have a ‘lady’ who has already been kicked out of Cuba for being involved with the CIA, and then she throws herself at JA and hogs him in her apartment, even though others have offered him accommodation, and even AFTER the ‘alleged’ ‘illegal incident’ she complains of. Would make a real nice court case, I don’t think. The CIA does tend to use sluts on occasion,
      seeing that is all they are themselves. Ask JFK.

      • BrianFujisan

        Paul We are all Angry… But I think you should Retract your last two sentences.

        • John2o2o

          Why?

          Perhaps the CIA does use sluts on occasion.

          Mike Pompeo (former CIA director): “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.”

          Well I certainly wouldn’t put it past them.

          Modern feminism has brainwashed us into strongly disapproving not of sexually promiscuous women as we used to do (with some justification in my opinion) but of people who call out sexually promiscuous women.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ BrianFujisan April 29, 2019 at 03:04
          What else should one call a ‘lady’ who honey-traps a person at the behest of the CIA, and perjures herself to set him up?
          As for the CIA, JFK had pledged to abolish it and replace it with an ‘accountable’ intelligence service.
          They have been a law unto themselves from the outset.
          Here is a ‘confession’ from one ex-Director.
          “What he confessed was this. He had not been serving God, after all, when he followed Allen Dulles. He had been on a satanic quest.
          These were some of James Jesus Angleton’s dying words. He delivered them between fits of calamitous coughing—lung-scraping seizures that still failed to break him of his cigarette habit—and soothing sips of tea. “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars,” Angleton told Trento in an emotionless voice. “The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it.”
          He invoked the names of the high eminences who had run the CIA in his day—Dulles, Helms, Wisner. These men were “the grand masters,” he said. “If you were in a room with them, you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.”
          Angleton took another slow sip from his steaming cup. “I guess I will see them there soon.”
          ― David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government

          • Dave Lawton

            Paul Barbara
            April 29, 2019 at 13:58

            Good Book another one is Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer. Oh yes Allen Dulles the fascist CIA spymaster who created the EU project which was funded by Hitlers best friend in America Henry Ford.Not forgetting Gladio and MKUltra brainwashing program.

  • Baalbek

    After the Iraq War Diary was released by WikiLeaks in 2010, Assange publicly stated that he hoped this detailled record of war’s inherent barbarity and inhumanity will cause the public and the media to pause and think before jumping on the bandwagon to support and cheer on the next war launched in our name. Less than one year after that event the drums of war were beating again, this time for Libya. A year later, in 2012, they began beating for Syria and today, in 2019, Iran is being prepped as the next nation state to receive a shockingly awesome democracy and freedom makeover courtesy of the “rules based international order”.

    Not only that, but the people resisting these drives to endless war are routinely denounced as “Putin puppets” “fascist sympathizers” and the like by the media and liberal politicians. Jeremy Corbyn is demonized as an anti-Semite, no eveidence required, and is ridiculed and scorned for not enthusiastically expressing a desire to “nuke” Russia. Donald Trump, the most evil man in the west if the hysterical media is to be believed, is only opposed on a superficial level and the “literally Hitler” nonsense quickly gives way to praise and accolades saluting his presidential cred when he lobs missiles into Syria and foments a slow motion coup in Venezuela. His support for beyond-the-pale crypto fascist Netanyahu likewise does not trouble the pearl clutching neoliberal clowns one bit.

    Meanwhile Julian Assange is treated worse than an accused serial murderer and might very well be shipped to stand trail in a US kangaroo court before being tortured and disappeared in the supermax memory hole in the land of the free and home of the brave….for the “crime” of doing journalism. Luke ‘MI6’ Harding and his ilk at the Grauniad and NYT used Assange and WikiLeaks to boost their “brands”, write books and collect awards…and like good Thatcherite “no society” neoliberals promotly threw them under the bus after they’d served their purpose. The despicable Guardian in particular has been leading the smear campaign against WikiLeaks/Assange and propagandizing for the neocon/neoliberal world order…all the while still calling itself ‘left of centre’.

    It is quite clear that the Atlantacist establishment in Brussels, London and DC, in collaboration with the Zionist supremacists in Jerusalem, will fight hard, and fight dirty, to the bitter end. Victory will not be easy and will eventually require actual effort in the material world. A ballot box overthrow of these forces is no longer feasible.

    • Peter

      Yes, pretty good summary of the upside-down state of things in the home of democracy.

      However:

      “A ballot box overthrow of these forces is no longer feasible.”

      Don’t underestimate democracy – don’t forget that it was public (ballot box) pressure that stopped Cameron from undertaking a ‘regime change’ bombing campaign against Syria in 2013, and that Jeremy Corbyn is now in the (ballot) box seat to become the next PM.

    • Sharp Ears

      Yes I agree that Baalbeck’s excellent comment is accurate and apt. I have copied it and sent it round.

      Meanwhile Julian languishes in HMP Belmarsh. Perhaps one of the royals could pop in to check on Julian and the other 909 (a 2008 figure).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HM_Prison_Belmarsh

      A commentary thereon – https://www.businessinsider.com/julian-assange-being-held-in-uk-belmarsh-prison-known-as-britains-guantanamo-bay-2019-4?

      SHAME ON THERESA MAY, SAJID JAVID AND THE OTHER TORY CAPTORS.

        • Sharp Ears

          In the UK in 2019. What would our fathers and grandfathers who fought for our freedoms and against fascism say?

          Failing prisons are a hotbed of extremism, Government adviser warns https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/28/failing-prisons-hotbed-extremism-government-adviser-warns/

          There has just been an excellent discussion on BBC News about the situation in British prisons. Nick Hardwick, the previous HM Inspector of Prisons spoke. His successor is Peter Clarke, well known since the 7/7 attacks when he was with the Met as Asst Dep Commissioner, Special Ops!

          • Charles Bostock

            I don’t know what they would say but I doubt they fought against against fascism to defend the right of people like you to badmoutth your country day in and day out.

          • Sharp Ears

            I think you’ve got the wrong person.

            Please tell us what YOU think of Julian Assange’s arrest and imprisonment. It’s OK by you I presume.

          • pretzelattack

            do try to read the posts you are replying to; he criticises some failing prisons in the uk. are we supposed not to notice this?

          • J

            This Bostock identity badmouths the UK every time he (or she) opens it’s mouth to defend the indefensible.

          • Charles Bostock

            In reply to your question at 12h54: yes, I am satisfied with Julian Assange’s arrest and conviction for the offence of jumping bail. As far as imprisonment is concerned, I believe that sentencing has not yet taken place, therefore if he is in prison at the moment it is while he awaits sentencing. I do not, as you should know by now, accept that his stay in the embassy constituted imprisonment, since he was free to leave at any moment (and indeed said he would if Chelsea Manning was released – which she was).

          • Charles Bostock

            @ J

            I shall, with the moderator’s permission, reply to your substance-free ad hominem attack on another commenter :

            Sharp Ears and many others specialise in bad-mouthing their country day in day out. If I question or contradict their criticisms, I am apparently defending the indefensible. That accusation rests on a fallacy, ie, that what Sharp Ears & Co. are criticising IS indefensible. But that is not necessarily the case; something does not become “indefensible” just because Sharp Ears & Co. think or say it is. D!ye see now?

          • Tom Welsh

            @ Charles Bostock: Some fairly eminent people have thought otherwise. Here is a short selection:

            “Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right”.
            – Major General Carl Schurz

            “‘My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.'”
            – G. K. Chesterton, “The Defendant” http://www.online-literature.com/chesterton/the-defendant/16/

            “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”.
            – Dr Johnson in conversation, on the evening of April 7, 1775 (Boswell)

            “Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first”.
            – Ambrose Bierce, “The Devil’s Dictionary”

            “Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority”.
            – Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms

            “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public”.
            – Theodore Roosevelt

          • Rowan Berkeley

            “with the moderator’s permission”

            You are the state’s official Tory troll here, Bostock – the price of the gracious permission of the TPTB to allow Craig Murray to have a blog at all! I knew it! IMO, you make this blog unreadable, and moderator deletions in your support cement your extraordinarily boring rule.

    • Goose

      Iran is simply too big, too unified and has too much regional support :

      · Iran is too united : 90% Shia vs 64% Shia in Iraq, and in Iraq the Sunni minority were overwhelmingly in control of the country(without internal division to sow and rebellion, where would acceptable new Iranian leaders be drawn from?).
      · Iranians are patriotic. When attacked are likely to unite in defence of their country, opposition to the Clerical rule would be put aside. They’ve watched Libya , Iraq and Syria be torn apart , who’d welcome a similar fate for their country? Even foreign based opponents of Clerical rule don’t favour a US bombing campaign to dislodge the leadership. A bombing campaign supported by that great democracy KSA?
      · Iran was never disarmed of its chem and bio warfare programmes, unlike Saddam’s Iraq.
      · Invasion/occupation would be logistically impractical as no surrounding countries would host US troops. Not to mention the incredible ongoing potential costs around invading and occupying. Such a war with Trump as Commander-in-Chief would be incredibly unpopular in the wider west and US. You’d probably see protests of the scale of Vietnam era.
      · Iran is likely to have the support of Russia, China, Iraq’s Shia leadership and population, Pakistani and even India’s support.
      · Iran is three times the size of Iraq and and near twice the population.

      • Mighty Drunken

        But unending sanctions can be imposed to wreck the country. Of course it would be an added bonus if the hardship caused by the sanctions lead to an internal political shift to more “Western friendly” political forces. Same for Russia, of course things will be helped along.
        Economic power is probably more important than anything else in today’s geopolitics. The West seem less interested in the political ideology of the “Axis of Evil” TM. They want access to economic resources

    • Michael McNulty

      What gets me about these hard-core war hawks is when they had their own chance to serve in war they were the hard-core draft dodgers. They didn’t want those wars, and if they had to lead their forces into battle like the rulers of old used to they wouldn’t want these wars either.

      • Ingwe

        @Michael McNulty-yes the war hawks avoid any actual service themselves.

        I well remember J Danforth Quail’s satirical Vietnam war experiences recounted in “Full Dinner Jacket”. And Trump, with his tiny hands, had bone spurs that prevented him enlisting but allowed him to play college football. Oh these brave defenders of democracy! Glad all those relatives of mine who fought fascism in WW2 didn’t do so in vain.

      • Ken Kenn

        It is a common thread in politics and the media that the loudest cheers for War come from what the Americans call ‘ Chickenhawks ‘

        Yosamite Sam ( John Bolton ) Trump/Cheney /Bush Junior all dodged the drafts in their time.

        See Scott Ritter interviews for details.

        Of course I’m sure if Charle’s country asked for his assistance he would rally to flag in an instant.

        Or write a strong letter to the Times.

        The emptiest vessels make the loudest noise.

        That’s why Trump lives in a big house.

        Fully tiled to aid echoes.

    • Mary Pau!

      I really do not think the “Allies” would be so foolish as to take on Iran. If this is in fact planned, where is the campaign to soften up the General Public? Most of the negative propaganda seems to be focussed on Russia.

    • Ort

      I just want to add to the chorus of commendation for this trenchant comment. Thanks, Baalbek!

  • Scott

    It seems the playbook to handle whistleblowers and political opponents is becoming blurred. The objective is always to disparage and undermine the credibility of the individual telling truth to power, by those who seek to control the narrative.

    1. Sexual criminal (the media gleefully tags rapist or sexual harasser or some other compromising material onto anyone when it suits the narrative, often forgetting to include the “alleged” tag, as has been noted with the Guardian for example with Assange).
    2. Communist / Marxist / Socialist (a lazy trope applied to anyone protesting or telling truth to power, especially those opposing US power)
    3. Narcissist (applied to Assange, Snowden and many others)
    4. Antisemite (Assange was briefly labelled an anti-semite, until the news cycle moved onto more compelling alternative labels. As we know, antisemite is becoming the label of choice to disparage left-leaning or anti-war politicians in particular)
    5. Mentally ill (to protest against the state is clearly a sign of mental illness)
    6. Deviant loner (the default approach to marginalize anyone acting differently, labelling them an outsider).

    Once mainstream media is onboard with the labelling, and the trope is widely circulated, the story can be kept alive by adding new categories of character defamation.

    e.g.

    Manning – the deviant loner, mentally ill, communist (betraying the USA), becomes a narcissist after gender change and seeking to enter politics.
    Assange – the antisemite (briefly he was labelled an antisemite, until a trope with better news traction stuck), deviant loner, communist sympathiser (yes, he is Putin’s friend or useful idiot apparently), hides in the Ecuadorian embassy to avoid prosecution for his sex crimes.

    It would be interesting to see how the labelling of whistleblowers has progressed over time say from the time of Dan Ellsberg to present day. Can readers of this blog think of other examples? Have all previous Sam Adams award winners been subject to systematic character assassination attempts, that include outright lies?

    The only way to counter the propaganda is to push a counter-narrative. So for example, the “deviant loner” (and possible communist sympathiser) Snowden was able to repudiate the media campaign against his character, in a series of interviews and youtube broadcasts, simply by speaking articulately, thoughtfully, and in a balanced manner communicating his motivations directly to the public, and revealing his strong sense of justice and civil responsibility.

    Manning also has been able to dismiss the media labels applied to her, by communicating articulately her strong sense of justice.

    This option has been blocked to Assange, who is not permitted to publicly challenge the campaign levelled against him.

    • John2o2o

      I agree to some extent Scott, but all of this is surely common knowledge to people such as Julian Assange and anyone in his position.

      The Mainstream/Permanent/Deep State/Establishment (whatever you want to call it) has always used crude ad-hominem to smear opponents.

      Unfortunately this ad-hominem is aimed at the masses who are much less engaged, well informed or interested in politics and who are therefore more likely to be susceptible to these sorts of smears.

      Although I personally detest the climate change fanatics (though being basically green) and greatly fearing what they will do to this country, I have to concede that they have played a blinder in using a 16 year old child to spearhead their campaign. In my opinion this could be construed as child abuse, but the media and politicians seem to have fallen for it.

      I daresay that Julian’s family have better morals than to try to use his daughter to campaign for his release!

        • John2o2o

          Thank you, intersting article. I had forgotten about Ban Alabed. Another appalling example.

      • pretzelattack

        what pray tell, is a climate change “fanatic”? and why would you attempt to associate scientists and the well established science with whoever you imply is behind the extinction rebellion?

        • Glasshopper

          There is more than a whiff of Korean Doomsday Cult about a lot of these types. Which is not to say there aren’t real concerns, but my goodness, some of these people i’m hearing on the radio sound un-hinged.

          • pete

            Re “some of these people i’m hearing on the radio sound un-hinged.”
            That’ll be the BBC’s Today programme.
            Re Assange, if the extradition to Sweden is just to facilitate his onward extradition to the US, should we be boycotting IKEA Yet? Why wait for the inevitable?

          • pretzelattack

            still don’t know what a climate change fanatic is, but then i don’t listen to the radio much. there are real concerns about some potentially catastrophic effects, put forth by scientists. depends on whether we get off fossil fuels, or not, or continue to increase using them.

        • Loony

          An example of a climate change fanatic would be the lady who glued her breasts to the pavement outside the London offices of Goldman Sachs. This action would appear to meet most generally accepted definitions of the word “fanatic.”

          • pretzelattack

            oh good loony, for a second there i thought you were talking about the scientists who tell you things you don’t want to know. i’m glad to get that sorted.

          • Loony

            Apologies – I thought you were just looking for an example of a climate change fanatic, I failed to appreciate that you were looking for a fanatic qualified in science.

            Try Guy MacPherson professor emeritus at the University of Arizona.

          • pretzelattack

            so the scientists are in fact fanatics, right loony? everybody but the fossil fuel shills are fanatics. just out of curiosity, why haven’t you, or somebody you’ve read about, published the nobel prize winning study refuting the science? i mean, if it’s just ideology it should be a piece of cake.

      • Ascot2

        I have admittedly not had much interaction with pre-university adolescents, but I have been in climate discussions and have been on university climate change panels dealing with students in the 18-21 age range. For what it is worth, I have found the youngsters far more aware of the mess that their elders have created for them, and much more open to ideas about how to build a better low carbon world. Of course they will the ones suffering most.
        What worries me is that, unlike previous generations, many of them will be graduating with huge debts and those will tend to tie them to the old, corrupted, way of doing things. The establishment likes that of course.

    • Jackrabbit

      Has Assange been visited by reporters? Is he allowed such visits? Why not?

      Wouldn’t it be smart for him to hold a news conference?

  • Sharp Ears

    Sheila Coombes on 21st Century Wire

    Never Forget: The Towering Exposure of Hillary Clinton by Assange and WikiLeaks
    April 26, 2019
    https://21stcenturywire.com/2019/04/26/never-forget-the-towering-exposure-of-hillary-clinton-by-assange-and-wikileaks/

    There is a video within of John Pilger speaking with Julian. November 2016.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=359&v=_sbT3_9dJY4 (there isa facility for subtitles)

    A partial transcript – https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/

    The poor, poor man. He has concerns for his children and their mother.

    • Sharp Ears

      As I said, this was about Julian Assange. Are you OK? You are not Habbabkuk are you?

  • Doghouse

    I think it is easy to fall into the presented fallacy that Assange somehow fled the charges brought against him in Sweden when in truth, as one or two seemingly in the know have pointed out on here, he in fact sought asylum against the ease with which he feared he could be handed over to the US FROM Sweden, or which is essentially the same thing – the ease with which he could be returned to Sweden. Some have stated that it is a mere formality for Sweden to hand him to the US who when they have finished with him would be obliged to hand him back to Sweden on the more serious alleged crime. I personally know nothing of this aspect of international law, but Craig expresses often times such knowledge and is familiar with the details, and, if the above is true, then I think he really does have a duty to explain why he feels Assange should adopt a course of action that on the surface appears tantamount to placing himself in a primed canon aimed directly at the tiger’s mouth?

    Personally speaking, if a single acolyte of the odious warmongering Blair points in one direction, I am obliged to look in the direct opposite. When seemingly 70 of them band together I’m going to run like hell in the opposite direction, mentally speaking.

    If it is true, and evidence suggests it could be, that a self evident primary target of the US intelligence services is entrapped by a US CIA asset in Sweden, then that took some planning and raises the question – likely answered above – why Sweden? And if it is answered above, I for one wouldn’t advise him to cheerily return there.

    The greater question perhaps, exactly how he came to be there, the chain of circumstances etc. A thorough analysis of that path may prove interesting if its ever been done? Was it well known that he would be there in advance for instance? How was the way paved?

  • Glasshopper

    I remember seeing Assange interview Hassan Nasrallah for his RT show and thinking, “That’s it. He’ll never be forgiven for that”.

  • Portjim

    The paragraph regarding what seems to be the current attitude, that any allegation of sexual assault must be true, highlights something that has concerned me for some time. Even if the accused is exonerated, their reputation will never recover.
    It reminds me greatly of the witchcraft hysteria of the 16th and 17th centuries – then, as now, anyone speaking up for the accused (an “apologist “ in modern parlance) was immediately suspect, and likely to join the accused on trial – nowadays by social media rather than on the ducking stool, but the chances of walking away unscathed are about the same.

  • Oregoncharles

    So put him on a plane to Sweden. Right now. Is there a US extradition warrant on file there? Could the Swedes legally extradite him for practicing journalism?

    • Bernd Paysan

      Sweden’s prosecutor had to close the case not only for lack of evidence, but also for disproportion. On the last possible day to do so. Reopening would add the question of proportionality again. He had stayed in arbitrary detention (as the UN put it) for 9 years now, and that is grossly disproportional to whatever punishment the case would result in, no matter if there was finally a proof (there isn’t).

      Furthermore, extradition does not allow onward extradition, unless it is asked and agreed beforehand. The Swedes could not extradite him for anything, even if it was terrorism, crime against humanity or such things.

      They all just don’t care about the rule of law. It’s pretty obvious who should go to jail in this case: Those who did the crimes revealed on Wikileaks, and those who did crimes against this publications for their own self-interest and helped.

  • Bernd Paysan

    In Germany, there is a “principle of speciality” to extradition. That means a country asking for extradition has to list the crimes they want the person for, and can only punish them for exactly these crimes they have asked for and which have been approved. It’s in IRG § 83h (1)

    https://dejure.org/gesetze/IRG/83h.html

    and looks like standard international law, nothing special for Germany, just normal rule of law.

    That was the reason why Spain didn’t want Carles Puigdemont from Germany, because secession as such is not a crime in Germany and therefore, only minor accusations were left, and they wouldn’t be able to judge Puigdemont for the “rebellion” they wanted him for.

    This includes further extradition to other countries, i.e. if the principle of speciality was valid in Sweden, they couldn’t have extradited him to the US, because they didn’t ask for any crime he might be accused there.

    Sweden refused to honor this principle (they said, they can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t extradite Assange to the US if there was such a request), and UK apparently also doesn’t have this, because if they had, the refusal of Sweden to honor it, would have immediately ended the extradition discussion.

    As far as I can see in this summary, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review, speciality and onward extradition are bars for extradition. Can someone tell me why this did not shut down the Assange extradition? Other than the obvious reason: They didn’t want to follow the rule of law, because they were too angry with “enemy of state nr. 1”.

    • Borncynical

      Bernd

      Ref your last sentence “They didn’t want to follow the rule of law…”

      I presume from your comments that you are based in Germany but take a broad interest in Western/imperialist politics generally. In response to your last sentence “They didn’t want to follow the rule of law…” it may not have escaped your notice that the US/UK/France triumvirate along with other allies make a habit of failing to follow the rule of international law or convention on a regular basis when it suits them. In their world of supremacy, international law only applies to others.

  • SA

    Greta Thunberg
    Indeed this is an extraordinary story and like all such media hyped stories demands to be approached with caution. However I am rather worried that many man-made climate change skeptics or outright deniers have jumped in this story as perfect evidence that they are right. But regardless of the rights and wrongs of exploitation of a 15 year old with Asperger let us not use this as a mechanism for division.
    I do not understand MMCC skeptics. A lot of them are conspiracists who tell us that we must not believe what our governments say or do and yet seem to be condoning one of the most serious controlling actions by our governments in the form of control of the energy resources and the endless wars that fuelled them, the pollution nature of the enterprise and the centralisation of economic power it produces. By contrast alternate renewable energy is not going to be monopolised by big oil and imperialist minded countries and nobody is going to monopolise them and they are probably less likely to be treated as a commodity as fossil fuels are. So do MMCC deniers know that they are acting as shills or at least apologists for the oil industry and economic and military imperialism?
    One of the most laughable arguments I heard coming from these deniers is the conspiracy that MMCC is a hoax that is fostered to increase the strength of the UN and thus end up in. “World Government”.
    Wouldn’t that actually be desirable? Wouldn’t a truly consensual government involving all members of the UN be more desiarabke that the constant hegemonic wars carried out by powerful nations for thier own interests.
    I invite some of our local resident MMCC deniers to answer.

    • Ken Kenn

      Fair points all.

      I’m not an expert on whether Climate Change is man made but one things for sure even if it isn’t it’s a threat.

      Experts versus Donald Trump is a no brainer.

      The thing is is that the earth is billions of years old and it is possible that this has happened before many times but now we humans are her to witness it and by definition we will suffer the effects of it.

      A touch of vanity from us no doubt but I’ll err on the side of caution and if we are wrong we will have been wrong and if we are right we will have saved ourselves ( temporarily ) from extinction.

      Children are alright – it’s the adults I don’t trust when all said and done.

      They are the ones who come up with the lies.

      Oh the vanity of humanity.

    • John2o2o

      If you believe that scientists are always right then clearly you are not a scientist.

      I sit on the fence on this issue.

      This is now a political issue and the truth is always secondary in political matters.

      Scientists need funding to work, and in order to receive funding these days they need to believed and taken seriously. That means that they will bias their opinions towards views that will increase their chances of funding. They will also learn to be very good at this.

      If you believe everything that comes out of the mouth of a (so-called) climate scientist then why not have them run our governments. We can sit back and do as they tell us can’t we if they are always right?

      • Ken Kenn

        A child of four would always be right against Trump.

        All I’m saying is err on the side of caution.

        If we’ve been duped ( we are usually duped here and now – never mind the future ) we’ll have a laugh about
        it down the pub.

        If we’re not then we’ll all slap ourselves on the back looking smug.

        Money has been wasted on a lot of worthless things in the past.

        This sounds serious.

    • Dave

      MMCC is an elementary scam and I’m opposed to neo-con wars, they are linked, but should be looked at separately.

      Britain is sitting on immense reserves of coal, but the coal mines are being closed, which is madness, although one has recently opened! The only realistic alternative to fossil fuels being promoted by the State is nuclear power, which they promote to provide the skills needed to renew Trident and hide the costs within fuel bills. Hence MMCC is the cover story for nuclear proliferation, which is a real threat to the planet.

      Covering Britain with wind farms and blighting areas of natural beauty is hardly the mark of a genuine environmentalist and making waste disposal so expensive due to recycling rules has led to the epidemic of fly-tipping throughout the world.

      World Government is an aspiration of idealists, but its extremely naive, as the brave new world will not be a democratic utopia, but dictatorial rule by the 1% in the name of the people. Ironically nation states are the green approach as it equates to not having all your eggs in one basket as would apply under World Government.

      • James Charles

        “For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.

        If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition. 

        So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
        https://thedakepage.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/how-to-assess-climate-change.html

        • Dave

          You repeat the claim that all the scientists agree with MMCC, except they don’t, they all agree its false. True different organisations lend official credence to the scam, but undermine their own credibility in doing so, because MMCC is an elementary nonsense, requiring no qualifications beyond common sense to disprove, hence why you avoid responding to the basic facts about carbon dioxide.

          Which are:- its essential to life on earth. Humans cannot even breathe without it and its the food plants breath to make them grow, so the more carbon dioxide the merrier. Carbon dioxide is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere 0.38% and the man made emissions are a tiny fraction of natural and variable carbon dioxide, making any man made emissions, irrespective of China, irrelevant as easily eclipsed by natural variations.

          The vast majority of carbon dioxide is trapped in the oceans and when the Sun is shining the oceans evaporate and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and when its cold the carbon dioxide sinks back into the oceans/water, with the rest held by vegetation in the sea and on land. I.e. increases in carbon dioxide follows rather than causes increase in temperature, but need to be measured over a period longer than a few days.

          However if not yet satisfied, there are many things than determine climate including the sun, moon, gulf stream, oceans, volcanoes, clouds, water vapour and other greenhouse gases. Thus to say carbon dioxide alone determines climate is a religious rather than scientific conviction.

          This conviction harks back to the old church teaching that the sun revolved around earth, a view held due to the centrality of man as God’s special creation, hence why everything revolved around man. This same human vanity is expressed by the modern Pope who now preaches MMCC, the new old time religion.

          Clark will repeat his too clever by half comment, that adding a small amount of colour to a colourless liquid will make a difference to its colour, implying therefore a fraction of carbon dioxide can make a difference, except climate isn’t a colourless liquid, its made up of all the things that determine climate to which a tiny fraction of carbon dioxide plays no part, let alone a determining role.

          I know some simply say follow the money and blame Big Oil for “denial” except Big Oil and the big corporations and financial institutions all gain from the scam from higher taxes and carbon trading, and the final giveaway is those who promote the scam don’t practice what they preach!

  • Sharp Ears

    ‘Wikileaks: Julian Assange will be sentenced at Southwark Crown Court at 10:30 A.M. today for ‘violating his bail conditions’ whilst seeking & obtaining political asylum.

    On Thursday at 10 A.M. there will be a hearing in Westminster Magistrate Court on the US extradition request.’

  • Sharp Ears

    50 weeks in jail (Belmarsh again?) for Julian. More to follow tomorrow on the US charges in all probability. I am ashamed to live in this fascist country.

    Judge Deborah Taylor – shame on you.

    Were any questions asked of the Dominatrix about Julian Assange’s imprisonment PMQs today?. No. All the stooges stayed silent.

  • Ingwe

    Maybe that jumped-up little twerp Gavin Williamson will now apply for asylum in the Ecuador embassy.

    • Borncynical

      …or he can go and join Juan Guaido’s campaign – that would be just up his street, such is his desire for confrontation. I’m sure they would benefit from his wisdom. 🙂

  • mark golding

    Williamson had to go. US/British SIS/CIA said so. He leaked Chinese (Russian) information. Mutually Assange faces isolation… in the USofA. The extradition cakewalk is tomorrow.

    The US/British SIS/CIA unit proscribes; Assange is a direct participant in Russian efforts to undermine the west. Mr. Assange is key to unlocking any of the lingering mysteries surrounding the Russians, the Trump campaign and the plot to hack an election.

    He [Mr. Assange] knowingly worked with Russian intelligence.

    The killing in Washington of Seth Rich, a young Democratic National Committee staff member has ‘taken out’ the rub.

    Shame on you British justice.

    God help Julian Assange. We love you.

    • John2o2o

      Except, Mark that Julian is not (at risk of) being extradited for anything to do with 2016.

      I cannot tell from your post if you believe this Russia rubbish – presumably not – but I think you should be clearer.

      Nobody knows if Seth Rich was murdered by the US deep state.

  • michael norton

    UN rights experts lambast Assange’s ‘disproportionate’ prison sentence in UK
    https://www.rt.com/news/458295-assange-prison-disproportionate-un/
    United Nations human rights experts have voiced criticism over the UK’s decision to imprison WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for nearly one year for skipping bail, describing the harsh sentence as excessive.

    Yes, it is the sort of treatment you would expect from Iran or North Korea, not a modern democracy.

  • Sharp Ears

    There was no mention of Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning at the White House press dinner in Alex Knox’s speech. He is the president of the WH correspondents’ association. Trump did not attend.

    ‘In a spectacular display of irony, Knox listed journalists jailed around the world and did not mention Julian Assange or defend persecuted whistle blowers like Chelsea Manning.’

    No Mention of Assange During Speech About Jailed Journalists at White House Correspondents Dinner
    https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2019/04/29/no-mention-of-assange-during-speech-about-jailed-journalists-at-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

    • michael norton

      There seems to have been no published comment from the Swedish officials, since Julian Assange was dragged out of the Embassy of Ecuador and imprisoned in London,
      why are they apparently keeping silent?

      • michael norton

        You could also say, there does not seem any appetite of the mainstream media to go to Sweden and ask the prosecution service what their game is?

        • michael norton

          There seems to be no further interest by the mainstream media in the unreasonable incarceration of Julian Assange.

          No questions are being posed?

    • Sharp Ears

      For reference, this is the nine page ‘Note of Mitigation’, referred to within the above, that was produced by Mark Summers, QC.

      https://www.scribd.com/document/408285158/JA-Mitigation

      In Para 10, it appears that the state pocketed the sum of £293,500 put up as sureties/security.

      ‘On 8 October 2012, the (then) Senior District Judge ordered the forfeiture of sureties in this matter totalling £93,500 (pursuant to s.120 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 , and £200,000 security.’

  • Sharp Ears

    Chelsea Manning speaks. Where are all her supporters? Silent.

    Betraying my principles is “a much worse prison than the government can construct”
    After nearly two months in jail, Chelsea Manning submits powerful appeal for release
    7 May 2019
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/05/07/chel-m07.html

    ‘Manning served seven years of a 35-year sentence in a military prison after she was convicted of leaking classified and sensitive documents exposing US war crimes to WikiLeaks in 2010. Most notably, she released the “Collateral Murder” video, which shows the 2007 attack by US Apache helicopter gunships in Baghdad that killed two Reuters journalists and at least a dozen Iraqis.

    While Manning has not been charged or convicted of any new crime, she has been treated as a convict, held in the solitary confinement for her first 28 days in jail. UN Special Rapporteur on torture, Juan E. Méndez, has declared that prolonged isolation amounts to torture when used as a punishment, in pre-trial detention, indefinitely or when the person already suffers from a mental disability.’

    • Garth Carthy

      I see that the Independent has reported a recent visit to Julian Assange by Pamela Anderson.

  • TFS

    [ Mod: Comment moved from the A Peculiar Request thread. ]

    You know that Yourself and the Wikileaks team should create a petition for Parliament to bring into law those Swedish laws for which Julian is been hounded under.

    I know of at least 70 politicians who would support the cause.

    Can you imagine the hysteria?

    • michael norton

      Julian Assange: Sweden reopens rape investigation
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48253343

      wedish prosecutors have reopened an investigation into a rape allegation made against Wikileaks co-founder Julian Assange.

      The inquiry has been revived at the request of the alleged victim’s lawyer.

      Assange, who denies the charges, has avoided extradition to Sweden for seven years after seeking refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.

      The 47-year-old was evicted last month and sentenced to 50 weeks in jail for breaching his bail conditions.

      He is currently being held at Belmarsh prison in London.

      You’d think he was a major criminal,
      not a hero.

      It seems that the Elite do not want heroes any more.

    • michael norton

      Eva-Marie Persson said a European Arrest Warrant would be issued for Julian Assange

      It is being claimed that one of the rape victims has demanded this action be taken.
      Is that the one who works for the CIA?

      • Martinned

        See below for the prosecutor’s decision, which explains it all.
        As for the CIA, I’m going to go ahead and say No.

  • Martinned

    Given that, in the past, certain commenters on this blog have tended to “misunderstand” the finer points of Swedish criminal procedure, it might be useful to link to the English version of the prosecutor’s decision, which is here: https://www.aklagare.se/globalassets/dokument/ovriga-dokument/decisionam_131226_10.pdf

    Interesting comment from the prosecutor:
    Since entry into force on 1 December 2017 of the law (2017: 1000) on a European Investigation Order, there is now a possibility – if necessary and with JA’s consent – to hold interviews with JA in the UK using a video link from Sweden.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.