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
  • Sarge

    Yes all the baying for sweden to extradite has strangely ceased. And you’re right, there will obviously be no apologies from the mps. Nor from the ‘radical’ novara media crowd, who collaborated in the msm game of diverting the story to the Swedish allegations. These radicals helped trash Assange in the minds of many leftists and have helped chill anybody minded to expose the Hegemon and corrupt elites.

    • Shatnersrug

      Ash Sarkar, is a fool and a narcissist, her mouthy woke feminist routine quickly slipped into mainstream buddy buddying with the usual suspects.

      She called Jacky Walker a creep without having met her, she said it was for the best that Chris Williamson was suspended, Chris Williamson the kindest man in politics a racist?? She called Assange a creep. She is completely full of sh*t. I believe Arron Bastani is an ok guy but he’s a wimp and she pushes him around. She bullied him about appearing on George Galloway’s show which he then made s simpering pathetic apology about that he had nothing to apologise for.

      If she’s not an MI5 agent I’ll eat my hat. And as for John Lansman, either he’s Mossad or he’s sleeping with Luciana Berger, possible both

      • Sarge

        Yes some are worse than others. But their general coverage of issues like Assange, the Right’s AS smears, RussiaGate, etc, has been right in line with establishment consensus. Have also heard them putting the boot into Craig on more than one occasion. It is pretty obvious they have their eyes set on careers in big centrist media.

  • Jarek Carnelian

    “And the person making the accusation had previously been expelled from Cuba as working for the CIA” – and this egregious signature of security service complicity is becoming a pattern. It is not mere laziness in the choice of operative. It is a message.

  • Techno

    I always suspected that it was a CIA set-up. I presumed that the women were paid well for their trouble, but the Cuba thing indicates that they may actually be paid up agents.

    So at least I know I am not going crazy. Also indicates that honey traps are real if the target is worth the trouble, as the secret services usually deny using them.

    • Jarek Carnelian

      You are in fact going sane – and the cognitive dissonance is painful. “Nobody is above the Law” became the MSM mantra of late, but the message is clear: “There is no Law for the Deep State” which is now in the business of controlling reality (and admitting it).

    • Paul Damascene

      A honey trap seemed a plausible scenario back in the day, when Scott Ritter’s credibility had to be destroyed.

    • Stonky

      I always suspected that it was a CIA set-up. I presumed that the women were paid well for their trouble…

      Ardin may have been part of a setup but I am sure the other girl was simply a star-struck groupie. You can see in the detailed papers of the case that she had no connection with Ardin prior to JA’s arrival in Sweden – Ardin and her friends were even laughing at her behind her back over her desperate stalking of JA.

      She didn’t want to press charges of rape against JA, and we have no idea how much she had to be railroaded into signing the statement that served as the basis of the charges in her case, since the police interview (conducted by a friend of Ardin in the presence of Ardin) was not recorded – a breach of Swedish criminal procedure.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    I would think that Met Commissioner Cressida Dick would know where it is if she doesn’t have it herself. She’s good at getting away with dirty business. Just ask that plumber guy Jean Charles the next time you see him.

    • Rhys Jaggar

      Jess Phillips has signed up to the Murdoch circle grooming process.

      Do you seriously expect her to deviate from Deep State scripts?

  • michael norton

    It was always about Intelligence and controlling the narrative.
    MIC should perhaps be now called MIIC.

    Military Industrial Intelligence Complex

  • Sharp Ears

    It is terrible. Fiery stuff on here.

    ‘Today we are all Julian Assange because if they can crucify Julian Assange they can crucify any one of us. Like Julian, we are not simply guilty of being journalists. We are guilty of being members of the Fifth and final Estate. We are guilty of being truth tellers, untethered to the multinational life-support-system of big business and bigger government. We are guilty of colluding with one another across their manufactured borders dividing us into left and right. We are guilty of spitting out the poison of the propaganda that once passed for journalism in this country. We are guilty of betraying their shallow patriotism in the name of truth. We are guilty as charged and we are aggressively unapologetic for our crimes.

    We are all Julian Assange. We are all Chelsea Manning. We are all Reality Winner. We are all Edward Snowden, Glen Greenwald, Ross Ulbricht, Cody Wilson, Jeremy Scahill, Peter Van Buren and Laura Poitras. We are the charred, writhing, screaming corpses of the earth. We are the children you left home alone while you went out starting fires in the Middle East and we found the loaded .45 you keep under the bed. We are the Fifth ####ing Estate. We are pissed off and we are not going away.

    When you crucify one of us, you crucify all of us. I hope you brought a lot of nails. We will make things ugly for you and that’s a promise I aim to keep. You want a war? You got one. Bring your guns, hell, bring your goddamn atom bombs. I will outfox them all with my blog. My keyboard is one weapon of mass destruction you don’t have to fabricate. This isn’t over. Not by a long shot. ‘

    April 26, 2019
    We Are All Julian Assange!: An Anarchist Soliloquy
    by Nicky Reid
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/26/we-are-all-julian-assange-an-anarchist-soliloquy/

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      Wish he was right, but most people don’t give a damn about serious matters. They are thinking about the next holiday, raise, and trip abroad. Denocracy sucks.

      • Shatnersrug

        That’s true, sadly I don’t know the answer to that, divide and rule is a very successful strategy for the elite

  • Sopo

    Just as interesting is that the US hacking charges against Assange cite the dates of the alleged hacking but omit where Assange was at the time. Answer: he was in the UK…

  • Jackrabbit

    No warrant is going to come.
    I think you’re being far too optimistic. The statue of limitations for rape in Sweden is 10 years. Sweden dropped the case in 2017 but is now, I understand, looking into re-opening it.

    Re-opening the rape case would not only help USA to discredit Assange but would side-step extradition difficulties in UK (both legal and political) so it seems more-likely-than-not that the Swedenish case is re-opened.

    I would also say that should a warrant from Sweden arrive he should now voluntarily go without further legal resistance

    If the Swedish rape case is re-opened, Assange faces the exact same situation that caused him to fight extradition. However bogus the rape charges are, extradition from Sweden to USA would be quick and easy. Which means he would likely want to resist – in every possible way – being sent to Sweden just as he did in 2010.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Jackrabbit,

      It seems to me that once a serious allegation is made, arrest, interview and charge follows.

      Once charged then the issue of bail arises. In serious matters, the accused ( being a foreigner), would be required to surrender his travel documents and then conditions would apply if ongoing confinement in jail was not being applied.

      In this Assange matter – it seems that Assange was freely able to travel to the UK.

      The evidence does not read as convincing for sustaining any legitimate allegation of rape.

      Assange’s only realistic option is to fight any and all extradition applications.

    • Arbed

      You should read the statement put out by the Swedish Prosecution Office:

      “We will now examine the case in order to determine how to proceed. The investigation has not yet been resumed, and we do not know today whether it [ever] will be. Furthermore, we cannot set a timetable for when any such decision will be made, says Deputy Director of Public Prosecution, Eva-Marie Persson.”
      https://www.aklagare.se/en/nyheter–press/press-releases/?newsId=0A298F4C7F9646B9

      In a reply to a FOIA question in 2017, the previous prosecutor Marianne Ny – the one who dragged her feet for 7 years before finally following normal procedure and coming to England to question Julian Assange, in November 2016 – confirmed that she had already DESTROYED the investigation case file. Of course she did. It contained so much evidence of her own abuse of legal due process.

      So how, exactly, is Sweden going to re-open a preliminary investigation – one which they closed with the formal reason of proportionality under Chapter 23, Section 4 of the Swedish Prosecutorial Code, mind – without any investigation case records? Start from scratch? Make it all up? (Again)

    • Jimmeh

      My understanding is that the charges were not dropped, rather no charges were laid before the investigation was suspended; it can be re-opened, and charges could in principle materialize.

      • John2o2o

        There were never any charges made.

        Julian was only being investigated as an allegation had (apparently) been made by these two women.

        The Swedes wanted to interview Julian as would be normal police procedure.

        They don’t seem to be interested in continuing with it to me.

        it is their investigation that has been dropped.

      • Shatnersrug

        You don’t understand what actually happened then Jimmeh. There were no charges, the thinnest of accusations and ‘victims’ that say the police bullied them into sign a statement that was false. It wouldn’t last five minutes under cross examination ad would bring the Swedish govt into disrepute. But it doesn’t matter anyway because the entire Sweden angle was only every a propaganda narrative to encourage the idiotic British majority to continue being idiotic with which they were only too happy to oblige as long as they have their lease car and three weeks in Lanzarote which they’ll get.

  • fwl

    Good post Craig. We are easily persuaded to accept the command (cleverly presented as ethical encouragement) to “look away nothing to see here – if your decent and respectable look away”. When we hear that command that’s when we should raise an eyebrow and investigate.

  • Vivian O'Blivion

    A couple of weeks ago, 70 something MPs and PotR signed a letter to Sajid Javid urging the Home Secretary to prioritise extradition to Sweden, in the event that an extradition request was received. The list of names reads like a Who’s Who of Deep State flunkies (Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips, Stephen Kinnock, ….). The stated justification for the request was concern to make clear the pressing need to prioritise addressing accusations of sexual assault. It seemed to me all too contrived and disingenuous. As if the signatories were responding to instruction from their handlers.
    In any case, as Lord Falconer pointed out at the time, why were politicians petitioning another politician to intervene in matters of the Criminal Court?
    Why would the Deep State prefer extradition to Sweden to that of the USA?
    Does Julian Assange’s knowledge of the true source of the DNC files pose a threat to the Deep State on the other side of the pond?
    I have an aversion to “conspiracy theories” and accusations of State assassination should, I think be treated with a healthy degree of scepticism but the random street murder of Seth Rich appears statistically improbable.
    I have read that if Julian Assange were to be extradited to American, the case would be heard by a predetermined Judge assigned to a specifically convened Security Court. Would precedings be in camera? Would there be a jury?
    Seems to me that in camera or not, jury or not, Trump’s staff in the Whitehouse would (justifiably) be paying close attention to what emerged.

    • Courtenay Barnett

      Vivian,

      You ask:-

      ” Why would the Deep State prefer extradition to Sweden to that of the USA?”

      The Swedish claim about ‘rape’ is more serious than the American application.

      So, there would be a smoother path for extradition to Sweden than to the US ( the powers that be already realise this).

      Either, way, Assange’s choice is to fight any and all extradition applications.

      N.B. Not to say that the Swedish allegation is rich and/or credible based on the evidence.

      • Casual Observer

        ” Why would the Deep State prefer extradition to Sweden to that of the USA?”

        For the same reason that Pontius Pilate is not really seen as the villain in the story of the Passion ?

        Britain sets great store by how it appears to the rest of the world 🙂

        • Kula

          If only! I find it hugely embarrassing that the British government openly lies, forces others to lie, supports racist land theft, bombs civilians, destroys cultures, endorses religious persecution, shames its people by holding votes and ignoring the result, I could go on. What happened? 🤔

      • John2o2o

        Courtenay, THE SWEDISH AUTHORITIES HAVE NEVER ACCUSED JULIAN OF RAPE.

        A claim was made by one (or was it two women). That is all there is to it!

        The Swedish police as a matter of procedure would have to investigate. It doesn’t mean that they thought that the accusation by the women would lead to any serious charge.

    • Trowbridge H. Ford

      So you imply Seth Rich was assassinated by Trump’s people, sounds quite likely to conspiracy theorist me.

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        Not Trump’s people (I doubt Trump could run a welk stall), Deep State interests. Since the Deep State fabricated an “insurance policy” against Trump winning the electoral college (Popadopoulos et al), Trump has a vested interest in uncovering the evil machinations of the Deep State. Trump may be an appalling individual and worse President but he is correct that the Deep State tried to mount a coup d’etat against him.

        • Trowbridge H. Ford

          We may find out if Trump is really a Mob Boss after he leaves office, instead of just a cartoon substitute of one, and the Seth Rich murder looks like what a clever one would arrange. Don’t think that the Deep State which dislikes some of what he is doing killed Rich for anyone.

      • John2o2o

        More likely to be Hillary’s people (it’s okay, I’m only joking) … who knows Trowbridge? I don’t tend to believe things that cannot be proven.

        If he was the leaker and he was discovered then perhaps someone would have arranged for his murder, but unless it was investigated then it is unlikely that any genuine proof of that will arise and it will remain an interesting theory.

    • Arbed

      There were at least three names on that list of 70 MPs who are no longer even MPs. Also at least a dozen decrepit old duffers from the House of Lords, to bump up the numbers. Of course the UK wants to foist its extradition of Julian Assange to the US – for the crime of journalism – onto Sweden. That’s what it was always all about anyway – avoiding the political embarrassment of being the State to do the dirty deed. A game of Who’s Left Holding The Shitbag if ever there was one. And the stakes are even higher this time around. The UK is going to be on the receiving end of quite a lot of very high-level opposition. Numerous NGOs, civil rights advocates, and three of the UN Special Procedures rapporteurs have already spoken out against Assange’s US extradition. And that’s before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – whose ruling against his expulsion from the embassy plotted by Ecuador and the UK – weighs in.

      Have a listen to what Assange says here, back in 2016, on the Peston Show about how the UK offloads the blame for its own policy decisions onto the EU, the European Arrest Warrant being a prime example:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7UvbETwpwU

      Sweden wanted to drop the whole thing back in 2013, according to Crown Prosecution Service emails obtained via FOIA by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. “Don’t you dare get cold feet”, they said: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/11/sweden-tried-to-drop-assange-extradition-in-2013-cps-emails-show

      The US judge in the US Attorney’s Eastern District of Virginia who will take Julian Assange’s case is Leonie Brinkema. She’s horrible. The prosecution will be entirely secret, and unfair. A previous victim – John Kiriakou, the CIA whistleblower who first exposed the US torture programme – explains exactly how Brinkema will conduct the trial:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSn65uU2CCs&t=32m0s

      • MJ

        Lords are still MPs. The House of Lords is part of parliament as much as the House of Commons.

          • Charles Bostock

            I believe some Irish MPs – or perhaps it is Senators – are unelected. They are appointed by the PM (and presumably the other party leaders).

        • John2o2o

          They are not referred to as members of parliament. Only those who sit in the House of Commons are referred to as MPs.

          So I would say that you are incorrect in your assertion.

          You could make an argument to justify your claim, but in practical terms “Members of Parliament” (MPs) is a term that is reserved for those that sit in the Commons not the Lords.

          Members of the House of Lords are not MPs

      • Vivian O'Blivion

        Can’t say I give much credence to the notion of squeamishness on the part of the UK Government at being seen to do the dirty work of the great, global hegemon. They are whores to the Atlantic MIC. The audience the Tories play to are supremely unconcerned about the freedom of press and citizen protection issues that would arise from direct extradition of Julian to American. If anything in our hyper-polarised political climate a Tory Prime Minister / Home Secretary would welcome the opportunity to look strong (in the eyes of their constituency) by sending Julian to an isolation cell in Fort Leavenworth.

      • Sharp Ears

        Worthy of note is that there were Friends of Israel from both parties on that list.

        • Charles Bostock

          Perhaps it’s worth noting that I was struck by the fact that there were people from both parties on that list who were not Friends of Israel.

          • J

            Are you a friend of israel? After all, it’s not the only tyranny in the Middle East you know.

          • Charles Bostock

            @ J

            I am not a Friend of Israel in the sense normally used on this website because I am not an MP.

            However, I am friendly towards Israel, in the sense that I believe firmly in its right to exist and am against its demonisation.

            Now that I’ve answered , what about you?

      • Charles Bostock

        Judge Brinkema was appointed not by George Bush or Donald Trump but by President Bill Clinton. Not quite sure why she should be called “horrible” – is it because she handed down a life sentence to one of the 9/11 conspirators and stopped him from making a political speech from the dock after sentencing?

        • pete

          Re “Not quite sure why she should be called “horrible” – is it because …”
          No, not because of that, obviously you did not watch the John Kiriakou interview, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSn65uU2CCs&t=32m0s0 otherwise you would have realised that she forbade releasing the evidence that might have proved his innocence from being heard in court and because she craves publicity and reserves the high profile cases for herself.

          I’m sorry, I know you recommended that I never post here again, but the urge was too great.

  • Goose

    The allegations involve alleged non-consensual sex in a consensual sexual relationship, allegations around events which are disputed by Assange and his legal representation. The PLP talk only about “rape allegations” and him needing to “face justice” with no context whatsoever. They know this casts the man in the worst possible light presenting it as if this whole thing is some slam dunk when those who’ve read the detail know it’s highly controversial even in Sweden.

    It’s worth remembering many in the PLP supported Hillary Clinton’s bid in 2016 and some even travelled out to the US to campaign for her( an acceptable form of foreign interference?) Think of the stink were it Russian MPs who’d gone to help Trump campaign, would the reaction be the same? Anyways, some in the PLP obviously felt personally invested in her and her campaign and thus found it easy to accept the idea, when she lost, that she was some how robbed by a combination of Russia and Assange’s Wikileaks.

    Then there’s the ongoing PLP war against Corbyn. Any position Corbyn takes the PLP take a contrarian position, as if by instinct. This obviously bodes ill for a future Labour govt. For without open selection and Corbyn platform supportive candidates, what’s to stop around 40-50 Labour MPs simply switching sides or sitting as independents should Labour win a majority?

    • Shatnersrug

      Ha, you know John Mcternan, the man that lost Scotland for labour by cozying up to tories and suggesting the losing strategy of being ‘left but looking right’ went to Washington to give the Dems a lecture on how to win elections, this was several years after he went to Australia to lose the election for Labor there too.

      He’s such a success that John Lansman the highly compromised bullshit Caesar of Monentum couldn’t resist offering him membership in the steering committee

  • Mist001

    I don’t really see a way out of this for Assange. He’s become a major problem. Ecuador shifted the problem onto the UK. The UK would love to shift the problem onto Sweden but Sweden don’t want to be seen as the bad guys by extraditing him to the USA, so no Swedish extradition warrant to the UK will be forthcoming from them. In the current climate, the UK would have no qualms about extraditing him to the USA but what if there’s a change of government? Would a different government want to inherit the Assange problem?

    I can see him falling down a set of stairs or some similar accident occurring at some point in the near future. I really don’t see him walking away from any of this.

    • Goose

      Some of the most damaging leaks have occurred while he was holed up in the embassy apparently with little means of communication , i.e., the Vault 7 leaks.

      So what’s the point of the authorities personalising it, if the leaks continue regardless and independent of Assange’s status? It looks like he’s being made an example of, purely to scare others, rather than natural justice and objectivity prevailing as we’d expect.

      • Shatnersrug

        You’re giving the American secret service too much credit here, they really are just gangsters, how would a gangster treat Assange? Stick him in a concrete underpass? He’s crossed them, and made them look foolish, they demand satisfaction for that

      • Wikikettle

        Even within the Secret Services, the Judiciary and Diplomatic Corps, there will always be people with a conscience. Some will still risk all to speak out. I am hoping that the Assange legal team will win a major victory. This will be a much needed brake to our decline and fall…

    • Jones

      perhaps his only chance is if he has something to trade to soften the blow and if so would he do it.

  • Paul Damascene

    Craig,
    A brief question for your community: Can the Assange bail-violation hearing result not be contested? If the Magistrate were actually trying to give evidence of judicial misconduct he could not have been more … injudicious in his remarks.

    • John2o2o

      I’m not sure of the law, but I would think it unlikely that it could be overturned. That Julian skipped bail is not in doubt is it? The only thing to be decided is the severity of his sentence.

      • Arbed

        Um, there’s an interesting backstory to it. Remember when the UK Supreme Court first ruled that his extradition to Sweden should go ahead? That was on 30 May 2012 but there was a hiccup as Assange’s barrister Dinah Rose stood up and said “Hang on, you’ve decided this on the basis of an obscure clause of the Vienna Convention we never discussed during this hearing.” So the judges went away to come up with a reason to justify what they’d done. They couldn’t, as it happens, so instead simply denied leave to appeal. All this put the final final verdict date back by two weeks, until 14 June. At which point, the Swedish prosecutor immediately petitioned the UK courts to reduce the standard 14-day window people have to lodge an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights to ZERO. In other words, Sweden sought to block off Assange’s final avenue of appeal against extradition – ostensibly for “questioning” in a preliminary investigation in which no charges had been laid. Sweden practices pre-trial indefinite detention so this would therefore mean as soon as he reached Sweden he’d be in custody and would have no protection against the expected US extradition request he feared was coming. (He was SO right, wasn’t he?)

        So that was when he walked into the embassy – when he heard that Sweden was trying to reduce his ECtHR appeal window to ZERO days.

        At that point, 19 June 2012, the UK Extradition Unit had not yet issued any surrender notice to Assange. This is important because the ‘bail skipping’ warrant/ruse to arrest him that was later issued was for “failure to surrender”. But there was no summons to surrender to by that date. To get around this, the UK issued a summons to surrender to Belgravia Police Station on 29 June 2012, which on the advice of his lawyers that asylum claims trump extradition requests in international law, he declined to do. The “failure to surrender” arrest warrant was issued the following day.
        https://wikileaks.org/Press-Statement-By-Julian-Assange.html

        So, yes, his treatment at Westminster Magistrates Court and Judge Snow’s ruling after a 15-minute, complete with extremely prejudicial remarks, was an egregious injustice.

        • John2o2o

          Thank you for your detailed reply. I’m not suggesting it was right, but I think that they could make that technical argument in the circumstances as a warrant had been issued.

          Judges do make such abusive remarks when they find people guilty in UK courts. That is unpleasant but not important.

        • Paul Damascene

          Is there not also a provision, regarding bail, that one must surrender if lacking reasonable cause not to. But I believe it could be argued that fear of extradition to US was reasonable.

  • Trowbridge H. Ford

    Arranged suicide seems more likely to me, given what allegedly happened to Dr, David Kelly, super hacker Gareth Williams, and Royal Cadet Stephen Hilder. One just has to feed the target something bad.

    • Shatnersrug

      I think you maybe right Trow, after all they are painting him as a mentally unstable rapist, who’s life is over, hanged himself in prison is I’m sure on the cards.

  • Paul Damascene

    I’m unsure whether Craig is making a rhetorical point or a tactical one here. I don’t profess any opinion on whether Assange should refrain from contesting a Swedish extradition warrant should one eventually come.

    But if intent is rhetorical, which seems more likely, one the finest pieces of argumentation I’ve read on this issue–better even than fine respective efforts by Jonathan Cook and Glenn Greenwald–is this one, from The Polemecist:
    http://www.thepolemicist.net/2019/04/avoiding-assange.html

    By Jim Kavanagh, and reprinted recently, at Counterpunch, it’s hard to summarize, as dense argumentation tends to be. A snippet, instead, this one on the Guardian letter-writing campaign to change the subject from extradition to the US, to extradition to the US via Sweden:

    “…clearly the letter writers stand in a different relation, and assume their audience stands in a different relation, to the issues involved in the actual U.S. versus the hypothetical Swedish extradition request. Thus, they feel comfortable flatly expressing no interest at all in the inevitable and terrible consequences that would result from honoring the U.S. extradition, while insisting, regarding the presumptive issue of a Swedish extradition, that “We must send a strong message of the priority the UK has in tackling sexual violence and the seriousness with which such allegations are viewed.” On a 1-10 scale of what issues are worth assessing, Sweden’s imagined interrogation of Assange for sexual allegations gets a 10, the US’s actual drive to imprison Assange for revealing war crimes is set at a firm 0. It’s a discourse in which the concerns about US extradition disappear.”

    But I would encourage your community to read it in full.

    • David G

      That Jim Kavanagh article is the most fully and forcefully argued piece in support of Assange that I have seen. Everyone should make time to read it.

      Kavanagh says the current attention being paid to the non-existent Swedish extradition request is just a purposeful distraction from the illegitimacy of the extant U.S. request, but that the Swedish case would toggle into actual existence as a “plan B” should there be a Corbyn government inclined to resist U.S. extradition, but vulnerable to pressure that sexual violence not be allowed to go unpunished.

  • Jones

    Clearly Julian Assange’s insistence that the US wanted to extradite him has been proved correct, as expected, he was not guilty of jumping bail as he was not intentionally trying to avoid prosecution and had ”reasonable excuse” as the law states. The claim that he will not be extradited to a country to face the death penalty is also a carefully worded con, if he is extradited to US he will face further charges when there resulting in long prison sentences, a sentence of 45 years is not much comfort and i would argue effectively a death penalty in all but words. The authorities have always fitted people up, they bend,twist, or completely ignore the law to suit their own agenda often with willing participation from the msm and gutter press. Chelsea Manning may play a pivotal role.

    • John2o2o

      I think it is clear that Julian was technically guilty of skipping bail.

      They could presumably decide that his sentence for this be very short as he has not been charged and is no longer under investigation for the alleged offence. I think they could even have freed him had they wanted to.

      Clearly the authorities are not taking that line though and are going to support the US in it’s extradition efforts.

      • Tom Welsh

        Have you read Arbed’s last comment? It seems to prove that Assange is NOT guilty of jumping bail.

  • Squeeth

    Guilt by allegation = witchcraft (or harassment if you’ve ever read an employer’s harassment policy).

  • Crispa

    The execrable Savid Javid after gloating about Julian Assange’s embassy expulsion and arrest more or less acknowledged that it was a stitch up by letting slip that it had come after long negotiations between UK, USA and the new Ecuadorian regime. He then tweeted as I remember that Ecuador could expect to have good relations with the UK in the future – in other words a pay off. With the matter done and dusted the Swedish dimension certainly becomes irrelevant, and it is only the stupid letter from the gang of 70 that has revived that side of things. I agree that aspect will most likely lie like a dead duck.

    • Charles Bostock

      One man’s “stitch up” is another man’s normal diplomatic cooperation and good win-win relations between countries.

      • S

        Nothing wrong with complex diplomatic relationships, but gloating is unpleasant. Every time Javid appears he seems to be gloating about how he is the man in charge.

        • Charles Bostock

          @ S

          One man’s gloating is another man’s expression of satisfaction at seeing justice done.

      • Wikikettle

        I dont think one can class our terrible one sided relations with some countries as win win.

    • Tony

      Whilst a spokesperson for PM May’s office stated that the UK had not been involved in the decision to eject Julian Assange from the Equadorian embassy! They don’t even try to get their lies straight anymore. They know it’ll all get ‘fixed’ for the bigger picture.

  • Fiona Joyce

    Where is Jeremy Corbyn on this very serious issue? It is high time he further exposes the ongoing corruption of the current U.K. government. We are drowning under the rogue government of Theresa May who is lawless, a filthy lackey to the equally lawless Trump administration. We desperately need clarity and support from Corbyn and a semblance of some kind of standards and direction. If he cannot support Assange in this obvious travesty of justice what good is he in a country crying out for leadership and self respect. Because in the U.K. we have lost our sense of humanity, our sense of decency. It is looking more like a dictatorship with each passing day where the rule of law no longer applies to those in power.

    • Sharp Ears

      He has spoken out against Theresa May inviting Trump over. He has declined the Queen’s invitation.

      PS He is resolute. Can you imagine the knives he would face if he spoke out for Assange?

    • Sharp Ears

      PS. I see he said this on April 11th.

      Jeremy Corbyn

      @jeremycorbyn
      The extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan should be opposed by the British government.
      56.9K
      8:34 PM – Apr 11, 2019
      32.9K people are talking about this

        • John2o2o

          You need to do your research Charles:

          “Jeremy Corbyn and Diane Abbott LAMBASTED for ‘making excuses’ for Julian Assange”
          Daily Express 14th April 2019.

          • Charles Bostock

            One newspaper – and the Daily Express at that – equals the “knives coming out”?

    • Charles Bostock

      If he ever became PM, Mr Jeremy Corbyn would become a Mr Harold Wilson in spades.

      Paul Foot’s demolition job refers.

      • Sharp Ears

        Why did you mention Jeremy Corbyn in reply to my link about a London event in support of Julian Assange?

    • Charles Bostock

      That old fool Peter Ford seems to be developing into an all-purpose self-appointed scourge of the government. First it was Syria, now it’s Mr Julian Assange.

      One shudders to think what he will latch onto next.

      • Tony

        Why is it foolish to flag up government lies about Syria and Julian Assange, Charles?

      • Yarkob

        the “old fool” Peter Ford seems to be guilty of the same thing as Assange; namely calling out the illegal, duplicitous and venal actions of our, and the American, government. if this makes him an old fool, then i reckon he’d accept that cheap ad-hominem. an old fool who managed, like Craig, to represent HMG until he could take it no more, i suspect. are you a failed FCO gopher, Charles Bostock? you seem to reserve a lot of opprobrium for them that’s had the courage to turn.

        • Charles Bostock

          Yarkob

          No, he didn’t retire early, he stuck it out to the bitter end. Unlike Craig, a full Office pension.

          He is certainly an old fool in the making and developing quickly by the look of it. We must see what other “causes” he starts championing in the future.

          I have the highest respect for FO people but, let’s be honest, no selection procedure in existence can ever eliminate people who, for whatever reasons, decide, once safely retired, to oppose what they previously had the job of supporting. And there is no problem with such people, per se, we live – thank God – in a country where you can be a dissident without being gunned down on your doorstep. One has to judge such people’s utterances on the basis of the facts (insofar as one can) on a case by case basis, and it is for that reason that I judge Peter Ford to be an old fool in the case of these two particular causes.

  • Athanasius

    They’re not the “false left”. They ARE the left. Throwing people who are not the proper shade of red – whatever it is this week
    – under buses is what the left do.

  • Jim O'Donnell

    Trowbridge H Ford: Trowbridge, (“Just ask that plumber guy Jean Charles the next time you see him”.) notwithstanding that I’m always loathe to interject, let alone correct a gentleman of your standing and status, the unfortunate Brazilian victim who expired ‘under Cressida’s watch’, was in fact, an Electrician….. 😉

    • Sharp Ears

      Yes. RIP Jean Charles. You were murdered. Dum dum bullets were pumped into your brain when you were seated on a Tube train.

  • Hmmm

    Usually, by now, Martinned has posted 2 or 3 times at least. Assange always brings out the legal expert.
    As I said to him Assange in a US jail is fait accompli. Just waiting to say I told you so.

    • Sharp Ears

      Did you mean ‘self appointed legal expert’. We only have his word that he has legal knowledge.

      • Charles Bostock

        I think it’s rather clear that Martinned does have legal knowledge. On what basis are you doubting that he has?

        After all, we could also say that we only have your word that you worked in the NHS.

  • John2o2o

    I agree that it was perhaps a ruse to get Julian extradited to the US, but I want to take you to task on one point:

    ” … 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.”

    Well okay, how do you prove that? Even if the condom had Julian’s semen in it – which you say it did not.

    I would also think it quite difficult to split a condom with your fingers during sex. And it sounds like a very strange (and completely pointless) thing to do even if you did have sufficient manual dexterity to achieve such a feat.

    When people go to police stations and make accusations such as this the police are morally and duty bound to investigate them and get both sides of the story. I would think in the end the Swedes maybe decided that the whole thing was a lot of nonsense cooked up by a pair of attention seeking s–ts.

    Perhaps the only thing that can be said for sure is that Julian (if he did have sex with these women) was extremely unwise in his choice of sexual partners.

    I repeat what I said earlier:

    This highlights the grave dangers of the current view that anyone making an allegation of sexual misconduct “must be believed”.

    I have never thought this a reasonable attitude and AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE I never believe allegations of sexual misconduct that cannot be evidenced other than by an accusation. (And as you say, a torn condom without the accused semen in it is not evidence).

  • Chris Barclay

    “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.”

    This is completely correct. We should also resist the pressure from organisations such as End Violence Against Women for rape and sexual assault trials to no longer be heard by a jury. If EVAW gets its way, the decision to imprison the accused will be in the hands of Judges such as Michael Snow.

    And of course we should support measures that strengthen the prosecution cases brought by the CPS and increase the conviction rate of actual rapists.

  • FobosDeimos

    It is so sad to see how low has Sweden fallen in recent times. From the constant Russophobic claims of its military, to the mere possibility that Sweden might join NATO, to PM Löfven’ s stern refusal to even consider the idea of forming a majority goverment with the Left Party afte the SDP won the 2014 elections, everything has been bad news for a long time. The crowning piece of all this decline has been Sweden’s shameful role in persecuting Assange. I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s admiring Sweden and its courageuos leader Olof Palme. He would turn in his modest grave, located in a Stockholm churchyard, if he could see what happened to his country after he was cowardly killed by the proverbial lone loony.

    • John A

      Palme was not killed by a lone loony. He was assassinated by the CIA with the complicity of the Swedish police. Incidentally, Palme has a beautiful grave in the grounds of a beautiful church, less than 100m from where he was shot dead. There is a metal plaque on the pavement marking the exact spot. The churchyard is about midway between the cinema he went to that evening with his wife and where he was shot. Incidentally, Palme told his security staff that he did not need any protection that evening before setting off. The cinema would be about a 30 minute or so walk from the Palmes’ apartment in Gamla Stan.
      From the assassination of Palme and later Anna Lindh, assassinated in a very similar way as Robert Kennedy, her assassin, like Sirhan Sirhan who was present but almost certainly not RFK’s killer, was in a hypnotic trance, another CIA hallmark, Swedish politicians have been lapdogs of the US.

  • Arwyn Thomas

    The raising again of the Swedish allegations was not to get Assange extradited to Sweden but to intensify the defamation campaign against him and neutralise the opposition to extradition to the USA.

  • Jones

    What will happen if both Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning refuse to testify against each other ?

    Chelsea Manning has refused to testiy against Julian Assange, when Assange is extradited to US (as sadly i expect he will be) he may refuse to answer any questions about Chelsea Manning too, in this case the authorities may play them against each other offering each a lower prison sentence for co-operation, with the threat of long prison sentences the temptation to turn on each other will be great but i don’t believe they will, Manning has already proved she won’t as she could be walking free now if she agreed to testify and i don’t think Assange will either even though it ‘s probably his only way to receive a lower sentence. What enormous courage these two exceptional people have, betrayed by folks who have profited from them and will lose nothing more than their job if they show support but stay silent in their cowardice.

    • Tom Welsh

      A fascinating opportunity to see how the classic game theory “Prisoners’ Dilemma” plays out between two real people – both outstanding human beings, clever, educated and thoroughly moral.

      God give them strength and help them to do right.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.