A Swedish Court Injects Some Sense 446


When, eight years late, the European Arrest Warrant request for Assange was finally put before a Swedish court, the court refused to issue it.

Readers of this blog are amongst the very few people who have had the chance to learn the information that the original European Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange from Sweden was not issued by any court but by a prosecutor; that this was upheld in the UK Supreme Court despite the Court’s open acknowledgement that this was not what the UK Parliament had intended by the phrase that the warrant must come from a “judicial authority”; and that the law had been changed immediately thereafter so it could not be done again.

Consequently in seeking a new European Arrest Warrant against Assange, Swedish prosecutors had finally, eight years on, to ask a court for the warrant. And the court looked at the case and declined, saying that the move would be disproportionate. It therefore remains the case that there is no Swedish extradition warrant for Assange. This is a desperate disappointment to the false left in the UK, the Blairites and their ilk, who desperately want Assange to be a rapist in order to avoid the moral decision about prosecuting him for publishing truths about the neo-con illegal wars which they support.

The problem is that the evidence of sexual crimes was always extremely, extremely weak to anybody who took the trouble to examine it – which is why the same false left were desperate to convince us that it was wrong to examine the evidence as the “victim” must always be believed, a strange abandonment of the entire principle of justice.

In the lesser charge which fell through the statute of limitations, Anna Ardin claimed that during the act of sex Julian Assange had deliberately torn the condom with his fingers. But the torn condom she produced to police had none of Assange’s DNA on it, a physical impossibility.

In the remaining charge of “rape, less serious”, Sofie Wilen alleges the following. She had consensual sex with Assange in her bed. She then dozed and was “half asleep” when Assange started having sex with her again. He states that she was fully awake and responsive through a series of sexual acts.

I have looked Julian Assange in the eye when he explained what happened, and believed him. I have not had the same opportunity with Sofie Wilen, and quite possibly she is equally honest in her account of events and I would believe her too. They had both been drinking. The difficulty is that this scenario is incapable of proof. A private sexual act that everybody agrees started and was consummated as fully consensual, but then continues or resumes as one partner is drifting off or has drifted off, but the other partner says they were still awake, absent a recording is quite simply incapable of proof either way.

What is beyond doubt true is that Sofie Wilen had no thought she had been raped when she met police to ask if Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test – a visit to the police which had been encouraged by Anna Ardin (she of the faked condom evidence). Ardin was present during Wilen’s police interview.

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

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

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

Despite this, Ms Wilen’s lawyer is adamant that she now does wish a prosecution to proceed. The problem is that question of proof. As the court has seen, there is none.

Julian Assange was interviewed in detail in Sweden before he was given permission to leave Sweden when the case was dropped by the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm. When it was reopened by another prosecutor (possible in Sweden), who issued the European Arrest Warrant, Assange at all times during his detention in the UK declared his willingness to be interviewed again, and eventually was interviewed over two days in the Ecuadorean Embassy in November 2016.

Julian Assange has never tried to avoid the investigation in Sweden. His concern was always that the whole thing was cooked up as a ruse to get him into custody for extradition to the USA. Events have proved this to be true.

To return to Sweden, the remaining question at issue is a very simple one. Was Sofie Wilen awake and responsive when sex was resumed, as Julian Assange insists, or was she “half-asleep” as Sofie says? Exhaustive questioning both in Stockholm and London has failed to produce an answer which could convince a court to issue a warrant. Prosecutor Eva-Marie Persson is now going to apply to interview Assange again. I genuinely cannot see what she feels this is going to achieve, unless she hopes to harass an ill man into a false confession.

The Swedish courts have finally injected a note of realism. The evidence Assange broke any law in Sweden has never stacked up. At some point, this poisonous farrago of prosecutorial grandstanding and Swedish sexual politics needs to be brought to a close.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments will be closed on July 4, 2019.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

446 thoughts on “A Swedish Court Injects Some Sense

1 2 3
  • Cass Dean

    You have highlighted a much neglected fact.

    When the colour of Trump’s hair has been forgotten, I fear the damage done to the law will still remain.

    The legal profession has discredited themselves. Mueller’s loopy theories of the law are allowed to stand, with the lawyers merely making little in-jokes about how “creative” he is.

    Nobody has laughed at the Keystone Kops performance of the stooges trying to frame Assange.

    • Wikikettle

      Monteverdi. Thanks, Bell says it all. We invited Germany for D Day celebrations and not China or Russia. What an insult to their war dead.

        • Geoffrey

          If Hitler had not made the mistake of attacking Russia, Germany would probably have consolidated it’s control over Europe. The UK would probably have had to enter into a truce. The US would have gleefully profited by selling arms to the UK and taken control of the weakened UK’s overseas assets, and then it would have come to some terms with the new German Empire (or whatever it would have been called).
          In fact the beginning of the end for Germany was the defeat of the German 3rd Army in Stalingrad in February 1943, the memorial of which I visited in April.

          • Squeeth

            Bosh! When Britain refused to fold, the blockade of Europe continued. Germany was economically dependent on the USSR and would become more dependent. Operation Barbarossa failed at Smolensk in September 1941 and the rest of the war was aftermath. If you asked surviving German Generals when they lost the war, the answer would be June 1940.

          • Geoffrey

            Bosh, yourself, The Germans sailed through Smolensk (which I have also visited) in no time, they were even welcomed by some who hated the Bolsheviks. They reopened the cathedral which the Bolsheviks closed in 1920, and allowed freedom of worship.

          • Johny Conspiranoid

            Geoffry;
            The whole point of Hitler and the Nazis was to attack the USSR. Thats why Henry Ford and pals funded him.

      • Kempe

        The only Russian troops fighting in Normandy were some renegades who threw in their lot with the Nazis.

        Not aware of the British or Americans being invited to the commemorations for Stalingrad.

        • Terence Wallis

          I am told they are invited every year but refuse to go. Perhaps they don’t like addmitting that the Russians won WW2 ?

          There is a moving ceremony at the Russian Memorial outside the IWM
          in London which is well attended.

        • yr hen gof

          40% of the troops facing the D-Day invasion were non Germans. They were titled: Ostlegionen (“eastern legions”), Ost-Bataillone (“eastern battalions”), Osttruppen (“eastern troops”), and Osteinheiten (“eastern units”). They were mostly from countries comprising the Soviet Union. There were also some Koreans who had been captured by the Japanese and forced into their army. Then in turn were captured by the Russians, then the Germans and ended up in Normandy.
          There were Russian defectors amongst these Ost Battalions but almost all were prisoners of war who were given the choice of fight or die.
          On their return to Russia after the war their likely fate was execution by firing squad.

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

          Had Wermacht and SS Battalions not been bogged down in Russia, events on the 6th June might have turned out altogether differently. Between May 1944 and January 1945, 60% of the Germany army were fighting the Russians.

        • Alex Westlake

          You’re counting all USSR casualties as Russians. Belarus lost a quarter of its population and Ukraine a fifth. And let’s not forget that Nazi Germany and the USSR were allies for roughly the first third of the WW2

          • N_

            They weren’t exactly allies, but it didn’t half rile the elite of the poshboy kingdom that those two countries weren’t annihilating each other with the British Empire staying out of the fighting altogether.

          • Alex Westlake

            “Staying out of the fighting altogether”? You are aware of Dunkirk, the Battle of Britain, the North African campaign, the Italian campaign, the RAF bombing offensive…

          • N_

            Yes, @Alex, and I’m also aware of the dates. This may help: Phoney War. I was talking about the reception in the British and French elites of the Soviet-German non-aggression treaty of August 1939, which you are mistaken to call an alliance. I am not talking about what happened several months after April and May 1940 when Germany occupied Norway and the Low Countries and part of France and threatened the mouth of the Thames.

          • N_

            several months after April and May 1940

            I meant to type: “several months later, after April and May 1940 when (…)”

        • doug scorgie

          Those “renegades” were not Russian but eastern Europeans from Lithuania, Serbia, Poland, Latvia, vici French and the Ukraine fighting for Germany and against Russia.

          • Hmmm

            I don’t think many Serbs and Poles were fighting for Germany in Normandy!?! Maybe some ethnic Germans from those countries. There were other east European countries from which special SS divisions were recruited; they mainly fought on the eastern front. Maybe that’s what you have in mind?

          • Alex Westlake

            The Baltic republics were invaded by Stalin in 1940, it’s understandable that some of their nationals wanted to fight the Red Army. And plenty of Russians did fight on the German side. Soviet prisoners of war were given the choice of forced labour and death through starvation and exhaustion, or changing sides, some took the latter option

          • N_

            For what it’s worth, there were Russian, Polish and Jewish prisoners in the German slave labour camp on the British island of Alderney, off the coast of Normandy. I think I remember hearing there were also some pro-German Russians among the camp’s officers.

        • N_

          Well you had better become aware then, @Kempe. Here you go: senior British and military commanders were invited to the 70th anniversary commemoration of the Battle of Stalingrad in 2013.

          Do you think Russians are as ignorant or as forgetful as many of the French people are who answered those recent polls, or as many British people are if we assume the royal family and government aren’t widely viewed as insulting their intelligence by ignoring the main arena in the war against Germany and by ignoring the country that lost most of its citizens and made by far the largest contribution to the victory? British and US leaders were invited to the 70th anniversary commemoration of VE Day in Moscow in 2015 too. (Barack Obama, from some new country or other, decided to throw an insult by staying away.)

          It’s obvious that the Russian government would invite its WW2 allies to any major commemoration of a WW2 battle or of the final victory.

          If you’d been to Russia or the Ukraine in the 1980s you might have wondered why there were so few older men around.

        • Andyoldlabour

          Kempe

          One of my late uncles was a member of the “North Russia Club”, and they used to go on a yearly trip to Murmansk to commemorate the people who sailed on the Arctic convoys.
          The Russians recognised these brave people and awarded them medals – before they were recognised by the UK.
          There are plenty of ex servicemen and merchant seamen who admire the Russians and recognise what they went through in WW2.

          http://www.holywellhousepublishing.co.uk/arctic_convoys.html

      • John A

        Not only was Merkel invited, she was classed as representing an ‘allied country’ when shaking hands with the queen.

      • Anon-1

        WW11
        27 million Russians lost their lives
        20 million Chinese lost their lives
        7 million other nationalities of non Jewish religion
        6 million people of the Jewish religion

        • N_

          You seem to think that all the people who were classed as “Jewish” by the Nazis, including for example if they had had one Jewish grandparent who died in 1890, followed the Jewish religion.

          • Squeeth

            The nazis had a racist definition of who was Jewish; being communicant with the religion was irrelevant.

    • Kempe

      In June 1944 the Red Army was still over 1,000 miles from Berlin and was only advancing at all thanks to the stream of US and British supplies coming in through the Arctic convoys. The Anglo-American strategic bombing campaign was also diverting large numbers of men and equipment (half of all 88mm and 128mm guns for example) from the Eastern Front to home defence as well as seriously disrupting German industry. The soviet Union couldn’t have won the war by itself which is why Stalin put so much effort into goading The Americans and the British to open the second front in Europe.

      • nevermind

        America supported its RussiN allied troops by sending them a lot of military hardware, they were allies in the war, re writing history to fit Russophobic minds and support alleged false flag events as in Salisbury, is part of the course for you Kempe.

        Are you by any chance related to the Kemps revolution?

      • Greg Park

        The USSR would certainly have won the war on its own. It crushed 173 German divisions in the East (there were just 37 German divisions in western Europe in 1944) and the Red Army killed 9 out of ten of all the Nazi soldiers killed in WWII.

        For Germans themselves the landings in France have little place in national memory of the war.

        “Angela Merkel will attend Normandy commemorations but ceremony unlikely to register much with ordinary Germans”
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/05/eastern-front-greater-role-d-day-german-memories

        • Alex Westlake

          Nikita Krushchev admitted in his memoirs that without hardware supplied by the US the outcome on the Eastern Front would have been different

          • Jo1

            The fact remains, millions of Russians gave their lives just as British, American, French and other nationalities did. They all matter.

          • Wikikettle

            Alex Westlake. The Russians bought the supplies and it suited us to keep the Germans busy in the East.

      • Tom Welsh

        “In June 1944 the Red Army was still over 1,000 miles from Berlin and was only advancing at all thanks to the stream of US and British supplies coming in through the Arctic convoys”.

        A masterpiece of specious argument.

        By the end of Operation Bagration, a few days into July 1944, the Red Army had recaptured Minsk – 592 miles from Berlin. By mid-August they had reached the outskirts of Warsaw – 321 miles from Berlin.

        According to Wikipedia, “The Stavka had committed approximately 1,670,300 combat and support personnel, approximately 32,718 artillery pieces and mortars, 5,818 tanks and assault guns and 7,799 aircraft”.

        In 1944 alone the USSR produced over 7,000 light, 22,600 medium and 4,700 heavy armoured fighting vehicles (tanks, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns) – a total of over 34,000. In 1944 the USSR also built over 40,000 military aircraft.

        Meanwhile, Lend-Lease had delivered about 20,000 tanks to the USSR during the entire war. https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/

        “At the beginning of 1943 there were 1,023 lend-lease tanks in Russian units, although 6,179 had been delivered since 1941”. A clue to the reason for this anomaly might be that a lot of the Western tanks were Shermans (which German soldiers called “the Tommy-burner” and British troops “the Ronson” because it lit up first time, every time) and Churchills (which Soviet crews called “a grave for seven brothers”). Any Soviet crew condemned to go into battle in a Western tank was almost certainly doomed – in a T34/85 or a JS2 they had a good fighting chance.

        During the whole of WW2 the Soviets lost 96,500 tanks, tank destroyers, self-propelled guns and assault guns, as well as 37,600 other armored vehicles (such as armored cars and semi-tracked trucks) for a total of 134,100 armored vehicles lost. The USSR also lost 102,600 aircraft (combat and non-combat causes), including 46,100 in combat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Industrial_output

        Yet in 1945 the Soviet armed forces dwarfed those of the Western allies.

        So “the stream of US and British supplies coming in through the Arctic convoys” (which, although colourful, constituted only about one third of Western aid to the USSR) had very little influence on Soviet military successes in 1944.

        • Hatuey

          Azerbaijan’s role in supplying the Soviet war effort during WWII was much more important, all important really, although technically it was part of the SU.

      • Terence Wallis

        KEMPE. Read Antony Beevor. The Russian were in action against 3/4 of the German Army. D Day had 10 divisions to deal with. I think the Russians did much more than required………

        I for one am very happy to say Russian won WW2. I said it the USA & nearly got lynched but was in Wa. State not Alabama. I was rescued by a history professor who said I was right !!

        • Tom Welsh

          By the way, almost all of the (very good) German Panzer divisions in Normandy were facing the British and Canadians around Caen. In the American area, further south, there were a few isolated tanks but no major organized armoured units.

          This allowed the Americans, once they got sorted out, to break out and race up the peninsula while the British suffered terrible casualties in men and materiel – for instance at Bourgebus Ridge, and at Villers-Bocage where a handful of Tigers wrecked a British armoured brigade and held up a whole division for several days.

      • N_

        In June 1944 the Red Army was still over 1,000 miles from Berlin and was only advancing at all thanks to the stream of US and British supplies coming in through the Arctic convoys.

        Get a map!

        The soviet Union couldn’t have won the war by itself which is why Stalin put so much effort into goading The Americans and the British to open the second front in Europe.

        Are you trolling or what? After Stalingrad and Kursk the war was only going one way. Even if the Germans had taken Moscow and crossed far over the Volga, the Soviets would have stopped them on some other river.

        The US and British elites didn’t WANT the USSR to win the war by itself. That was the point of D-Day. Similar reasoning led to the terror bombing of Dresden and the US nuking of Japan.

        There is a reason why when shops run bare in Russia people know what to do, whereas in Britain when the shelves run bare later this year because of Brexit most people won’t have a clue and they will wait for the nearest person speaking in a posh accent or otherwise confident tone to issue instructions.

      • Alex Westlake

        Most of the equipment the western allies provided to the USSR went via the land route through Iran. The Arctic convoys were unnecessary but Stalin pressured for them to continue because they were supposedly good for morale

      • Squeeth

        The Allies applied an intercontinental division of labour; the USSR built tanks and the US built them steam engines and grew food. The USSR flagged US ships which sailed to Vladivostok (past Japan) unmolested even after Pearl Harbour.

      • FranzB

        Kempe – “In June 1944 the Red Army was still over 1,000 miles from Berlin ”

        According to Chris Bellamy (Absolute War) the Red Army more or less reached Kovel (450 miles from Berlin) on the 17th April 1944. I think you’ll find that Moscow is about 1,000 miles east of Berlin.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Carpathian_Offensive

        Operation Blagration, begun on 23rd June, took the Red Army to Warsaw (300 miles from Berlin) on 29th August 1944.

      • Rob Royston

        If you have read Churchill’s History of WW2, he says that after the successful landings in Italy he wanted Britain and America to drive North and into East Germany to get there before the Russians. The US sided with Russia and insisted there should only be the two fronts. When I read this, maybe fifty years ago, I thought it meant that the division of Europe was what these two wanted so as to bring the warring European nations under their control.
        Now that these countries are free they are again being used by the warmongers to create tensions between the major powers.

    • Goose

      Don’t you just hate today’s vomit-inducing leaders pontificating about WW2 and defending freedoms and sacrifices and using the whole thing for political promotion and photo-ops.

      I also don’t understand why Special Operations Executive (SOE) documents are still classified to this day.

      And just to put it out there. My own family lost someone on a bombing run over Germany in his early twenties.

      • Dungroanin

        Exactly Goose.
        Also why the Hess story is still not told. The papers were supposed to have been fully published decades ago!

        • Goose

          They did at least diligently keep detailed records. I wonder who decides what’s held back ; who decides what’d damage that vague concept that is the ‘national interest’ and morale of the population, in 2019 , 75+ years on?

          Have you seen this :

          Documents concerning the Falklands war, Northern Ireland’s Troubles and the infamous Zinoviev letter – in which MI6 officers plotted to bring about the downfall of the first Labour government – are all said to have been misplaced.

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/26/government-admits-losing-thousands-of-papers-from-national-archives

          And I’d wager future historians trying to make sense of present day US/UK ME policy, will find only missing records and false accounts. Such is the lack of integrity among all senior officials these days.

          • yr hen gof

            There are records from Kitchener’s time in the Sudan still classified and I gather shed loads from our time in Africa that were irretrievably water damaged when they were dumped at sea.
            14 miles of shelving at the FCO Hanslope… so they say.

          • Goose

            Shows how conformist and ‘establishment’ New Labour really were.

            Labour in opposition, pre-’97, talked about bringing a revolution to UK’s obsession with secrecy; layers of unnecessary secrecy were to be swept away. When elected in 1997 Blair gave David Clark, now Baron Clark of Windermere, responsibility for producing a White Paper on Freedom of Information which was published in July 1998 and ultimately led to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. He talked about developing an “all singing, all dancing” Act that would sweep away unnecessary secrecy. This got him replaced.

            He opposed moves to water-down the freedom of information proposals from what had been proposed by Labour in Opposition, and this led to his sacking.

            Blair also watered down proposals to give judges the power to strike down legislation that was incompatible with the ECHR as they’d proposed to do in opposition.

          • N_

            There are always different rules in Britain where the royal family are concerned.

            Different channels come into play from the usual ones along which most usual orders flow. Fingers get clicked and people who may have played what they thought was an “important role” for decades realise that when special circumstances prevail they have to do what they’re f***ing well told and like it.

            Rudolf Hess was a Steinerite by the way. (And Steinerite scum have put resources into denying it or belittling it, saying he was only “interested in biodynamic farming and Waldorf education”, just as they try to downplay Heinrich Himmler’s “biodynamic” farm and the Steinerite company Weleda’s experiments at Dachau. No doubt there will be wallies on the internet who insist in a challenging tone “Can you produce their membership cards?”)

  • Hatuey

    If Assange had nothing to do with Wikileaks and was just a guy wanted in Sweden, accused of rape or something, nobody here would hesitate to say he should go to Sweden to face those allegations and resolve the matter.

    I see everywhere the problem of loyalty to parties and people destroying principle. It’s the same with Scottish independence. I struggle with this because I tend to think too highly of people and assume that, like me, they have the intelligence to dedicate themselves only to principle and stop falling into traps… did Blair’s Labour teach you nothing?

    • JMF

      Oh please! It was a blatantly obvious smear campaign. Pinning fabricated dirt on their enemies is their modus operandi.
      Remember those WMD’s in Iraq?

      • Hatuey

        WMDs in Iraq have nothing to do with the allegations that he raped someone. On planet earth we would call that a non sequitur.

        Moreover, if he’s innocent then I’m sure he has nothing to worry about.

        • WJ

          He was already interviewed about said allegation. He was never charged with a crime. It is obvious that this is not about any alleged having quasi-consensual sex with a drowsy woman you just had consensual sex with. It is about the U.K. and Sweden and the US jockeying to save as much face as possible while securing his extradition.

          • Hatuey

            I’ve heard all this stuff about the Swedish interviewing him before, but can you clarify what “quasi-consensual sex” means?

          • pretzelattack

            as pointed out, assange was already in sweden, and was willing to answer any questions, and the original prosecutore dropped the investigation. you’re just repeating the smears.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Hatuey June 6, 2019 at 02:14
          ‘…Moreover, if he’s innocent then I’m sure he has nothing to worry about…’
          Exactly! We all know that the US ‘Justice’ system would never convict an innocent person, and that US police don’t employ a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ policy.
          Indeed, we could say the same about Britain….

          • Hatuey

            If this is a competition to hate America the most, I’ll happily bow out.

            As for the question of guilt or innocence in the case of Assange, most people would accept that he probably did play a part in hacking US government systems (Manning said so) and he most certainly did publish materials considered secret and sensitive to the US government. Looking at it in those narrow terms, he most certainly is guilty.

            His case or defence, of course, will revolve around the public interest in revealing these things. We are talking about major crimes, internationally recognised crimes and crimes that are covered in US law too. It’s very easy to criticise America and Americans but I believe most of them are likely to take a constructive view of his role.

            The sort of trial they opt for will be all important.

          • Ash

            > His case or defence, of course, will revolve around the public interest in revealing these things.

            If he’s railroaded into a US “national security” court–such as the one that has indicted him–he will be explicitly barred from even attempting to mount a public interest defense.

          • Ash

            Trying to find a decent source but that’s per John Kiriakou, who himself was convicted in the very same court that indicted Assange, the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia (it’s colloquially known as the “Espionage Court”, and no national security defendant has ever won a case there). In his particular case, every single thing he tried to raise in his own defense was denied by the judge, so he was compelled to plead guilty. Apparently this stipulation applies to these types of cases in any court, not just this particular one, so I had the details slightly wrong.

            This one isn’t terrible despite where it’s published, but I’ll return if I see a better one.
            https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whistleblowers-have-a-hum_b_6903544

          • Hatuey

            Ash, I’m very familiar with John Kiriakou’s views on this. They are actually almost identical to mine. Kirikou was actually acquitted of all his alleged whistle blowing crimes during the Bush administration. So much for that monolithic US justice system and espionage courts.

            The Eastern District of Virginia is just like any other district except that the people who live there, for obvious reasons, are likely to be involved in the military or security services, know someone who is involved, or have family members who are involved. It’s a community of sorts.

            There’s no such thing as an espionage court. If they invoke CIPA (The Classified Information Procedures Act) in the courtroom — and they most likely will — it would mean that everything someone like Assange might use as evidence in a certain defence case may be prohibited and deemed classified which means you’d remove the jury and lock the doors whilst that stuff was under consideration. The implications of that are naturally serious if your defence depends on the jury hearing that stuff.

          • Ash

            Acquitted? Wasn’t he forced to take a plea? John has talked at length about how he wasn’t allowed to argue that it was in the public interest; I still need to find a better link for that, but it sounds like you’re already familiar anyway. I’m admittedly totally out of my depth on the legal technicalities (I’m a scientist, not a lawyer), but it seems pretty clear that Mr. Assange will be prevented from mounting a public interest defense that anyone actually hears, whether through CIPA or some other means. “Espionage Court” is just a nickname, not a real designation, but does seem apropos.

            I’d be interested in hearing more about the relevant written law and what it says, but they haven’t exactly been tripping all over themselves to follow proper procedure wrt this particular publisher, so perhaps one could be forgiven for being cynical about how much the letter of the law really matters in this case.

      • Hatuey

        That’s great, you’re very articulate and have a way with words, assuming that was your goal. I’m a bit old fashioned myself when it comes to both form and substance; I write rather plainly, as you can see, and tend to think a conclusion should be preceded by a premise or two.

          • Hatuey

            You just don’t — and refuse, I’d say — to see the bigger picture.

            I’ve said it repeatedly, I’m about principle and causes, not personalities. Join the dots.

          • pretzelattack

            right now your respouting propaganda about assange. what cause does that support? what principle?

          • Hatuey

            pretzel, on a certain level, anything that draws attention to war crimes and atrocities is a good thing. If he can clear his name in Sweden and fight the US in court, I think he will serve his own avowed causes and principles well.

          • pretzelattack

            sadly, the u.s., u.k. and swedish governments apparently don’t agree that anything that draws attention to war crimes by the u.s. is a good thing, which is why they have helped in this propaganda charade that you apparently believe.

        • Ray Raven

          You may well be an old fart; but Jackrabbit is still correct.
          What you write is definitely ‘plainly’, plainly wrong.

    • SA

      Hatuey
      Are you just pretending to be devil’s advocate, as you have done about two years ago, or have you had a brain transplant?

      • Hatuey

        SA, please stop looking at every issue as an opportunity to tell us how morally superior you are. We are all morally superior.

        Assange, his role in the future and the past, in historical terms, is someone I admire and respect. It’s only his role in the present that I think we’d disagree on.

        Right now, regardless of the veracity of the accusations in Sweden, Assange represents a compromised figure. We have all seen the way they go out of their way to compromise people that pose a threat. I don’t doubt there’s some of that in this, but in a sense we are talking about perceptions and as far as perceptions go is doesn’t matter if it’s all fabricated.

        I think his credibility, significance, historical importance, and potency as someone committed to opposing the vile bastards of the world would be enhanced if he faced the Swedish authorities and put an end to this crap. If he did that and won, cleared his name, it would reflect positively on his message and the perception of him in the world. Like most people here, I assume he is innocent and so I believe he could achieve that.

        So far so simple…

        The US charges and his prospects there are more difficult to assess. People get emotional and irrational when it comes to personalities but if you stand back and assess it honestly and coldly, as I do, you could make a case for saying that whatever happens in the US is a win-win for the principles and causes which he stands for.

        Let’s be honest and also admit that there was an inevitability about all this. Supping with the devil is one thing, long straws for sure, but Assange went way beyond supping; he kicked the devil right in the chops. Going after him, extradition, assassination even, all to be expected under the circumstances.

        With Trump in the Whitehouse, I think the best chance of a reasonably fair trial in the US exists right now. And don’t rule out him winning there and all of this exploding embarrassingly in their faces — at the end of the day we are talking about war crimes and all sorts of other atrocious stuff. Maybe they should be the worried ones. However his trial in the US went, there’d be a lot of attention on these issues.

        • SA

          Thank you for the detailed answer. I agree to a great extent with the first part of your explanation but the problem is that not many who read this blog really believe he will have a fair trial in the US. I believe that he will be tried in secret. The American justice system has suffered badly since 911 in producing new classifications of those that are enemies of the state and such individuals are classified as outside the laws. After all the trial is already prejudged and many politicians even want him assassinated.

        • Ben

          In a perfect world, with a perfect justice system, in another time, maybe, or more likely another dimension. Meanwhile this is going on in a country where you can plead “in the public interest” if your name is Rebekah Brooks but not necessarily any other name. Wrong kind of public interest.
          Do you agree, Hatui, yes or no, from what has been written here, including the behaviour of judges, that Assange is unlikely to get a fair trial? You are writing as if you haven’t agreed with a single thing that Craig writes in this blog.
          Manning is in jail. They are after Assange.

          • Hatuey

            I disagree. And, further to that, I find your comment odd because it really wouldn’t take long on Google to find out you were factually wrong.

    • Tom Welsh

      Rubbish, Hatuey. Imagine someone – say yourself – is wanted in Russia or China for some crime which you don’t take seriously. Say, for example, spreading anti-state propaganda. Would you be happy to be extradited to that country, placed in the exclusive power of its judiciary, without appeal?

      I thought not.

        • Goose

          Mike Pompeo, no less, called WikiLeaks a ‘hostile intelligence service’ and numerous pundits and senior political figures in the US have stated Assange should be executed. It all became very personal. The UK spent a fortune monitoring the embassy est. £16m, do you really think they’d do that, were this just about what did or didn’t go on in a Swedish bed or two?

          Think any of this is conducive to a fair judicial process and trial? He wasn’t hiding out in the embassy for shits and giggles.

          • Hatuey

            I don’t see anything you say here as having any bearing on his forthcoming US trial.

    • N_

      I don’t like WIkileaks and never did, but I still recognise that Julian Assange has been the object of criminal persecution by the warfare state for several years and there is no serious case of rape or any other sexual offence for him to answer.

  • Baalbek

    The whole “rape charge” thing is complete nonsense manufactured to smear Assange. But it’s so ingrained in public consciousness that even some RT anchors make reference to it. And we are to believe the Swedish prosecution authority normally takes ten-years to conduct a preliminary investigation of an alleged sexual impropriety? Yeah, right.

    That the whole process of smearing and stitching up Assange went smoothly in Sweden, the UK and US with quiet bureaucratic compliance and no conscientious resistance, at least publicly, from the officials and staff involved shows how deeply corrupt the political and justice systems in these countries have become.

    • Andyoldlabour

      Sharp Ears

      It is disgusting that they can run a story like that, following their articles on JA. Where do they think the journalists got their information from, it is obvious – Wikileaks.
      What a bunch of two faced hypocrites.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      Food for thought

      Udo Ulfkotte – Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3AW2YFbqJE

      Interestingly Ulfkotte’s book “Gekaufte Journalisten” is not available anywhere in English, despite being a bestseller in Germany. (Amazon is selling second hand copies for $1300).

      Also Ulfkotte died of a mysterious “sudden heart attack” in 2017. (Strange how many “inconvenient persons” die of unexpected “sudden heart attacks” isn’t it?)

      I am not sure whether to put Ulfkotte into the “Alex Jones category” or not. It is difficult to simply ignore his claims as he worked for one of Germany’s main newspapers “Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung” for years.

      After he stopped being a journalist, he seems to have drifted into “right wing populist” and “anti-immigration” circles. However this should not automatically discount his claims.

      In any case, it is clear to me that the Guardian does not even try to conceal their “working relationship” with the UK’s intelligence services.

  • writeon

    If Assange had actually been formally charged with some kind of sex offence by the Swedes, this would have been something else entirely. He would know what he was charged with and be able to defend himself properly and everyone else would know specifically and exactly what he was supposed to have done wrong. It’s difficult to understand why people think he’s ‘running away from justice’ when he hasn’t even be charged with anything, and after so many years too. It’s not as if the Swedes haven’t had time to formulate the charges, but it’s significant that they haven’t, charged him. It shows how weak their case really is.

    If one looks at how ‘rape’ is defined in UK and US law and how our jury system works, I don’t think there’s even a 1% chance that Assange would ever be found guilty of anything near ‘rape’ by an English or American court, unless of course, we all travel back in time to the nineteen thirties in Mississippi and Assange is a young black man wrongly accused of ‘rape’ by a white woman. Then he’d be found guilty by a white judge and an all white jury. Probably they’ed even drop the bother of a trial and just string the poor bastard up from the nearest tree.

    As the sex was consensual, a continuation of series of sexual acts between two people that night, not force or violence was used at all, which the women admit is true, how one earth can one call Assange’s actions ‘rape’? And that’s if one accepts the women’s accounts of what happened? That Assange doesn’t agree fully with them about the actions is something else. How could one possibly prove, in a court of law, beyond reasonable doubt, whose version of events is the most accurate?

    This case has never really been about the women or what happened in the privacy of the bedroom. The women have never personally accused Assange of raping them, surely that alone is a relevant fact? I mean the women should know whether they were raped or not, or is that too much to ask? The prosecutors seemed obssesed with getting Assange back to Sweden at all costs. Why? They could have charged him at any time over the last nine years, dragging him back to Sweden was totally unecessary. They know Assange denies the allegations and he’s been questioned enough times already. So either charge him, or don’t. Either they have strong case, or they don’t. It’s obvious that the reason they didn’t charge him is because their case is so weak, otherwise they would have charged him.

    Finally, Assange isn’t obliged to prove his innocence, it’s up to the prosecution to prove he committed a crime. Only they can’t do this. This is why the case is collapsing and he’ll never be charged and won’t face a trial in Sweden.

    • N_

      Yes and the forensics of the condom support Julian Assange’s assertion of innocence in regard to that accusation, and more than that they also support the view that Swedish officials have been consciously engaged in criminal persecution. “Don’t get cold feet” indeed.

  • David

    another anniversary today, it seems. Not news to people & courts in Sweden, naturally but for some “love-island” reason, UK scores (again) an awareness ‘nul points’ in association with Orban’s Hungary.

    https://picante.today/europe/european-commission-press-releases/2019/06/05/41616/european-commission-reports-on-the-eu-charter-of-fundamental-rights-10-years-on/

    news from a non-UK press agency quoting a reminder that ten years ago the EU charter of fundamental rights was established, this reaffirms the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
    Fundamental Freedoms, (docu itself from 2016 available from https://rm.coe.int/16806f53e6 )

    some key points of the charter from a 2018 analysis, according to the Romanian press agency article :-
    o establishing whistleblowers protection at EU level (Minimum standards to guarantee a high level of whistleblower protection),
    o promoting electoral rights (Measures to promote free and fair elections, to avoid disinformation and fake news),
    o fighting illegal hate speech online

    on average about 42% of European citizens are aware of the charter of fundamental rights, reaching a peak in the 60%’s in Sweden, Melania’s Slovenia, Estonia, Luxy, Finland and the nadir of the bunch, where a scarce 30% have heard of these rights, is rightly, obviously where “the Assange torture regime” continues; makes you wonder (a bit) about the ‘accidental’ conjuncture of Brexit, electoral rights – “avoiding” disinformation, Integrity initiative fake news, suppression of whistleblowers and promotion of made-up illegal hate speech, Brexit and Julian…..co-incidences?

    • Dave

      Perhaps after the massacre in Norway, the Swedes feared the same, but now the Deep State have him, their job’s done, hence all non-charges dropped. But the wild card is will Trump find an opportunity to pardon him before he’s killed to enable him provide testimony against H.Clinton?

      • michael norton

        That is a possibility Dave, I do not think Donald Trump is anything to do with getting Julian Assange locked up, palpably Julian being locked up in Belmarsh is nothing whatsoever to do with whatever did or did not happen in Sweden.
        But who are the key shape-shifters who have ordered his incarceration?

        • portside

          Sure, Trump’s horrified by what’s being done to Julian Assange. He’s just too diplomatic to say so publicly.

          • OnlyHalfALooney

            Like any US president, Trump is terrified of the CIA, NSA, military and “deep state”/security establishment. I’m still hoping he will pardon Assange, but I’m afraid the probability is very small.

            I do wonder if the US actually wants to put Assange on public trial. Unfortunately, prosecution under the “espionage act” makes it impossible to offer any kind of defence except “I didn’t do it”.

          • pretzelattack

            bush and cheney weren’t terrified of the cia. cheney made frequent trips to lecture cia analysts when they initially didn’t support the iraq war wmd bullshit. then george tenet got the message “slam dunk mr. president”. bush/cheney also didn’t hesitate to reveal a cia operatives identity (valerie plame) over the same issue.

  • Sharp Ears

    The excellent human rights activist, John Hilley, challenged the BBC on their reporting on Julian Assange.

    To BBC (14/5/19)

    In this news report, presenter Huw Edwards stated with regard to the Julian Assange case: “He’s always denied the charges”.

    As the BBC should very well know, Assange has never been charged with anything by the Swedish authorities. Why was this entirely false statement made by the BBC? Isn’t it a clear dereliction of the BBC’s proclaimed duty to provide clear and accurate information?

    This statement has helped reinforce a very serious misconception around the Assange story. Will the BBC be issuing an appropriate public correction on a forthcoming edition of News at Ten?

    http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1559808280.html

    A mealy mouthed reply (on the link above) came back.

    FYI C(r)apita run the BBC Complaints department from their giant sized shed in Darlington.

    • Sharp Ears

      Cassandra Fairbanks:

      ‘EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Belmarsh Prison Inmate Provides Photos of Julian Assange, Says the ‘Internet is the One Thing They Can’t Control’
      6th June 2019
      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/exclusive-interview-belmarsh-prison-inmate-provides-photos-of-julian-assange-says-internet-is-the-one-thing-they-cant-control/

      ‘While some of the photos revealed his prison cell and the conditions, we have opted not to share those as they may violate his privacy. The photos reveal a thin blue mattress within a scarce and very small cell. #

      The photos of Assange himself reveal considerable weight loss since I last visited him in the Ecuadorian embassy in March.’

      I agree about the weight loss. Poor man. You would not know he will only be 48 next month when looking at his photograph. Looks to be in his 60s or thereabouts.

      • Isa

        I think that Cassandra may be being played by intelligence services . The whole inmate statement and ability to circulate pictures online and conduct an interview from his cell via mobile phone sounds quite unlikely to me . I’d say intelligence services are playing with us and Cassandra . I don’t want to be too cynical but there’s something odd about it all.

        • Northern

          I agree that I’m pretty dubious of that Gateway Pundit story, though I do think it worth pointing out that Mobile phones are completely and utterly rife in UK prisons and the idea that an inmate was able to conduct several hours of conversations with a journalist without being detected is actually very plausible.

          • Isa

            Agree on mobiles in prison , It’s the internet access and the inmate’s strange statements about his lawyers that makes me very sceptical . Not of Cassandra at all , I trust her 100% , but of the person that I would guess is pretending to be an inmate .

          • OnlyHalfALooney

            There is a good chance the intelligence services want to counter accounts that Assange is ill.

            Doesn’t he look well in the photos. My word!

          • Isa

            OnlyhalfAlooney that’s what I thought as well . That and passing the statement that Assange’s lawyers are bad . They are not .

      • Tony_0pmoc

        Sharp Ears,

        I don’t think those photos were taken in Belmarsh prison, not for the reason that it would be impossible to do so, by smuggling in a mobile phone, but because he looks considerably healthier, than all current information suggests he is.

        And who, except a sad American, still uses the term “reach out” ?

        Tony

        • Borncynical

          Tony

          The article says that the photos were taken before he became ill. Apart from the fact that he exhibits his ‘trademark’ laconic smile in the pictures, which can be deceptive, I personally don’t think he looks at all well.

  • Jenny Skelton

    At last the Swedish court showing a bit of sense. Thought they might be too influenced by what America wants so glad they refused to issue the warrant.

  • Sharp Ears

    The Ghion Journal, which is reader funded, has followed the case. This from a Californian writer, Stephen Boni.
    (Ghion is an archaic name for the Nile River)

    The Noir Detective, Julian Assange and What Comes Next
    By Stephen Boni on May 31, 2019

    The slow-motion murder of Julian Assange, which we’ve been witnessing unfold for several years now, has accelerated precipitously. His recent admission to the Belmarsh Prison hospital and his reported inability to hold coherent conversation with his lawyers is a testament to his artificially induced decline. His brutal persecution for practicing investigative journalism—an act unequivocally protected by the 1st amendment—holds deep (and, if we’re honest with ourselves, ominous) implications about where the United States and other Western nations are headed.
    /..
    https://ghionjournal.com/the-noir-detective-julian-assange-and-what-comes-next/

    The moral pygmies, Trump, May, Macron, Merkel and so on, have finished attending D Day commemoration ceremonies today. Imagine the amount of fossil fuel consumed in delivering and collecting them from France, and to and from Ireland too in Trump’s case. Hope he enjoyed his round of golf at the Trump Doonbeg resort in Co Clare (£300+ a night for us, the plebs). They can now return to their HQs to plan their next atrocities.

    • giyane

      Moral pygmies?

      British viewers will never forget the weird charade to make Mrs May look Big, where he pouts and drivels about the NHS and she feigns offence and firmly puts him straight. Like giving a leg up to a St Trinians pony rider without doing up the saddle girth and Mrs May ends up upside down under the pony’s tummy.
      These pathetic laurel and hardy antics on the world TV screens give the world a good laugh at our expense.

      When we’ve finished wiping away the tears, can we have a knighthood for Sir Julian for giving our country back some credibility. Why don’t these clowns get best Bafta Awards for comedy? Or Trump, best dog at Crufts, and May, best dog at chasing her own worms?

  • Republicofscotland

    So as some alert commentors have already stated Julian Assange’s country of birth Australia is cracking down on whistleblowers.

    Laws are in force or coming into force soon to prosecute those who whistleblow on sensitive subjects. One would’ve thought that the alleged crimes that the whistleblowers reveal would be the focus of a just and democratic government, as is Australia.

    However this attack on those who reveal Australia’s dirty little secrets, is in my opinion an attack on Australian democracy. Assange can expect no succor of any kind from this new uglier Australian outlook by it government.

    • lysias

      Could that recent Australian election where the right wing won a surprise victory, contrary to the polling, have been manipulated by the intel agencies?

  • pretzelattack

    according to caitlin johnstone, quoting his father, assange is getting sicker–the father couldn’t visit him because a doctor was suddenly called in.

  • writeon

    What I find odd is the attitude of the two Swedish women. I can understand that they might feel angry with Assange for ‘two-timing’ them, but it’s not as if they were in a long or stable relationship to him. He wasn’t their ‘boyfriend’ or ‘partner.’ A most it was friendship and sex. Did they believe this was the beginning of a great romance with our time’s Martin Luther?

    As the second woman SW, didn’t even want to sign the police statement and has indicated that she didn’t want Assange punished, and that the police pushed her into it and wanted to ‘get him’, it seems odd that it’s now her complaint that is the centre of the ‘rape’ alligtion. SW said that Assange didn’t rape her in an interview. So what’s going on here?

    Surely these two women can see that Assange’s has suffered enough over the years, haven’t they got the ‘revenge’ that AA has talked about in relation to men that dump women? What more do they want? It seems strange to me. They obviously felt some sympathy, warmth, ‘love’, for Assange when they met him, because they slept with him, ate with him, lived with him, had lots of sex with him; yet, for years they’ve taken part in a ghastly piece of massively disproportionate political and legal theartre, where Assange has been systematically undermined and smeared to an extraordinary degree and big and powerful states want to use events in Sweden to destroy him, totally and literally. What kind of people are they that they have gone along with this dreadful process aimed at the destruction of a person one once had intimate feelings for? I don’t understand them or what motivates them. It seems really weired to me. Is it really true that hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorne? I hope not. They’ve got their pound of flesh, just look at Assange! He’s been punished more severely than he would have been if he’d been found guilty in Sweden. What more do they want?

    • pretzelattack

      we don’t know that they are driving this, any more than sw drove assange being punished in the first place–the cops wanted to get him, pressured by the intel services no doubt.

    • Hatuey

      writeon, I have literally walked into walls that have better reasoning powers. You seem to rule out completely that Assange may have transgressed here. I have no idea what Swedish law is on these things but up until all this we all considered Sweden a pretty good example of a democracy that had achieved a healthy separation of powers.

      I’m quite shocked by the rush to trash Sweden as some sort of corrupt authoritarian state — all of a sudden — and the cavalier attitudes revealed when it comes to matters of intimacy and the basic human rights of women on here.

      Like you, I assume Assange is innocent, but he must establish that once and for all.

      On another sweeping point you make about the apparent ambiguity of these women who on the one hand had a close relationship with him but on the other feel aggrieved at his treatment, it’s not uncommon for people to have mixed emotions in abuse cases. Most abusers are closely related and involved with their victims. I find it amazing that I need to point that out amongst seemingly civilised and intelligent adults.

      • Anthony

        “What is beyond doubt true is that Sofie Wilen had no thought she had been raped when she met police to ask if Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test – a visit to the police which had been encouraged by Anna Ardin (she of the faked condom evidence). Ardin was present during Wilen’s police interview.”

        (From the CM post you’re commenting under.)

      • writeon

        You, in contrast, have all the ‘reasoning powers’ of an Internet… troll. You really need to look at your own powers of reasoning. I haven’t ruled out that Assange may have ‘transgressed.’ I think he did… ‘transgress’ because he didn’t understand the subtle and unwritten, often unspoken, sex rules in Sweden. What I don’t think there is any evidence for at all, nothing in fact, that he committed any kind of sex crime, certainly nothing that would stand up in a US or UK court.

        Perhaps you should do some research about Sweden and Swedish law, you’ve said yourself that you have no idea about any of these things. Your powers of reasoning are… impressive here. Who is this ‘we’ who despite knowing nothing about Sweden, one is able to pontificate about Swedish democracy and their ‘seperation of powers.’ How do you know they have a ‘separation of powers’ in Sweden, exactly? I’ll let you into a secret about Sweden. They don’t have a ‘separation of powers’, that’s enshrined in the United States Constitution, not in Sweden.

        What ‘basic human rights’ are you talking about, specifically, in relation to the two women in Sweden? How do you know their rights were ‘trampled on’ by Assange? Do you have a shred of evidence for that statement. A person with your obvious powers of reason, must, surely?

        Assange is innocent. He hasn’t even been charged. Why must he establish his innocence? You have things the wrong way around. Is this what you call ‘reasoning’? It up to the state to prove he’s committed an offence. That’s the normal way. The accused doesn’t have to prove their innocence. Do you know, have you any idea at all, how difficult that is? Proving that you didn’t do something? It tips the balance massively in favour of the state.

        What proof is there that Assange ‘abused’ anyone in Sweden? Assange isn’t ‘closely related’ to these women, nor are they victims. For someone who is so confused and admits ignorance about Sweden, your argument and reasoning leave much to be desired. I speak Swedish. I’ve lived in Sweden. My wife was Swedish. Frankly, to be lectured by someone like you, is rather irritating, but I suppose that’s the role of the troll?

        • Hatuey

          You are hysterical. You act full on aggrieved at me accusing you of saying Assange is innocent, then what do you do? You go on to say, matter of factly, that he is absolutely innocent.

          I have no idea if he is innocent or not. According to your “reasoning” though, the Yorkshire ripper was innocent until he was pronounced guilty in court. Since I’m not pretending to be a Swedish legal expert, I am not using words like “innocent” in anything other than the normal everyday sense.

          Are you really suggesting now that the judiciary in Sweden is not independent of the government?

          “ Politics of Sweden takes place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic constitutional monarchy. Executive power is exercised by the government, led by the Prime Minister of Sweden. Legislative power is vested in both the government and parliament, elected within a multi-party system. The Judiciary is independent, appointed by the government and employed until retirement. Sweden is a monarchy.“
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Sweden

          You might consider the question of why these trolls you talk about are always people that point to the contradictions in what you say.

          • Al

            Actually, as things stand, JA IS absolutely innocent.
            Due to not having been proven to be guilty.

          • writeon

            Your are, obviously… a troll. There are no contradictions in what I’ve argued. I can say with absolute certainty that Assange is 100% innocent, because he hasn’t been found guilty of any crime in Sweden at all by a court. He’s innocent until he’s been found guilty. In Assange’s case this is even more correct and logical because Assange hasn’t even been charged with a crime and he probably won’t be because the state’s case is so weak. They’ve had over nine years, nine years, to charge him. If they had a strong case he would have been charged. Surely this is obvious, even to you? What don’t you understand about this very simple piece of logic?

            Of course the Swedish judicary isn’t ‘independent’ of the government. They are all paid and appointed by the state. Jugdes are state employees, like prosecutors and policmen. One can always ‘formally’ state that the judiciary is ‘independent’ of the state, however, in practice they are not. There’s the ‘fairytale’ about Sweden, then there is the reality, which, as in all countries, in very different.

          • SA

            Hatuey has a rather rosey tinted view of the rule of law in the ‘great democracies’.
            Although there is a framework of fairness and judiciary independence, this applies to , say 90% of the time especially in interpersonal disputes but begins to fray at the edges when it is necessary to defend the ‘state’ which is equal to the ruling class. It is this last bit of equality within the law that is necessary in a true democracy and to think that this currently applies is a myth.
            It is also important to reflect on your original post ‘if’ and therein is the rub.

          • Twirlip

            The word ‘innocent’ is ambiguous. According to my dictionary, Hatuey and writeon are both using it in defensible ways. But Hatuey’s usage is simpler, because on that basis it is possible to talk of an innocent person being sent to prison, whereas in writeon’s usage, no innocent person is ever sent to prison. (Not that you would want to say that, of course!) Of course there is a substantive disagreement, too. It’s not all about the use of one word, but the ambiguity does seem to have complicated the argument. I hope it doesn’t seem that I’m just being pedantic.

          • pretzelattack

            this is the way hatuey is using the word “innocent”
            ‘but he must establish that once and for all.’ the burden of proof is not on asange to prove he is innocent. the prosecution case is a farce.

          • Hatuey

            We don’t need to guess what sense I’m using the word “innocent” in — I spelled it out above. If someone in Sweden accused me of rape, I would be over there on the first flight to prove I was innocent.

            Now, I understand that in legal terms one is technically innocent until proven guilty. We all get that. Very clever. I’m talking about accusations of serious crimes though and if they were directed at me, I think I’d want to face them and prove beyond doubt my innocence (used in the sense I described previously and not the pretendy lawyer sense).

          • pretzelattack

            he was already in sweden, he didn’t have to fly over. they didn’t want to talk to him then, and the initial prosecutor closed the case, then it got reopened by some partisan hack who wanted to rendition him. you have contorted the story almost beyond recognition, or rather you are repeating the absurd lies of the intel agencies.

  • Sharp Ears

    Prof Ferrada de Noli from Swedish Doctors for Human Rights warns –
    ‏ @ProfessorsBlogg
    QUITE MISINTERPRETATION in soc media ref Swedish court not seeking (yet) #Assange extradition. A ‘victory’ is NOT.
    –Court said investigation on ‘rape suspicions’ to remain
    –European Investig Order to prevail
    –Swe prosecutor to question Assange in London prison.
    …”Then we’ll see”

    https://twitter.com/ProfessorsBlogg/status/1135679810607493121

    Plus
    ‘Please don’t be naive. What the Swedish court ruled against Assange is – for the moment – an extradition to Sweden is not needed
    because he is secured and available in a London prison for interrogations by Swedish prosecutors.
    The (political) case against Assange in Sweden is far from being closed, only the US can do that.
    The “case” was initiated on requests from the USA in 2010 after the Wikileaks’ publications on the Afghan War – where Sweden’s Armed Forces participate under US Military command. ‘

    https://twitter.com/ProfessorsBlogg/status/1135679810607493121

  • Gary

    This SHOULD mean that Assange can appeal his sentence for breaching bail? I can understand that penalties for breaching bail are put in place regardless of the eventual guilt or innocence of the accused but are rather a penalty for breaching the court’s directions as to their behaviour whilst on bail. However, when the Swedish Court has now proved what we all knew ie the original warrant was incompetent, then surely ‘justice’ should be done. On a test of ‘reasonableness’ we can all come to the same conclusion – release him.

    But today I note that our news programmes are chock full of the commemoration of the D-Day landings 75 years ago. When our young men were sent to save Europe from totalitarianism, fascism and a deeply corrupt regime (to say the VERY least) in the form of the Nazis. This would be an appropriate time to remember that we hold freedom of speech dear and we do not imprison those who criticise our governments. This would be an appropriate time to release Assange owing to the initial incompetent warrant and refuse extradition to the US. Will our government take such an action? NO, they will ignore the lessons the world learned from the Nazi regime having full reign over most of Europe and even carry out actions which would have felt right at home in that place in that era.

    The internet and ‘access for all’ carried with it hope for this and future generations that governments would be less likely to be able to hide their atrocities because as soon as even ONE person became aware of them it could be spread worldwide in minutes. Now our governments are looking to quell these hopes and replace them with fear, replace openness with self-censorship, with the feeling that Big Brother is watching – because he IS watching…

          • Tatyana

            Hi there, Wikikettle 🙂
            I returned to see if there are any replies, but the comment was deleted. Was there something wrong with it?
            I’ll search for the film, thank you.

        • SA

          Wiki and Tatyana
          It is interesting that sometimes the moderators tolerate OT private discussions but at others delete them. Not being paranoid, just saying.

          • Tatyana

            I recall it was not a private discussion. It was about Turkey buying russian C400 weapon and I commented on the level of close relationship between Russia and Turkey, including our economic ties, variety of turkish goods in Russia, popular tourism destinations and how common turkish people are perceived by common russian people.

          • N_

            Mods: what SA says. A summary of moderation policy would be useful. I have a vague idea that there’s a fairly strict interpretation of what is “on-topic” for comments on the front post, especially in the first few pages, but no good picture of how loose the interpretation is for older posts.

  • Wikikettle

    Bigger picture. There will be a fight till the death now. CIA, FBI, DOJ, Clinton Democrats are going to double down. Steele to face DOJ. Pressure on deep state grows. Will all the dirt come out or will there be a scapegoat and cover up ? Will Trump get his revenge ? Or will the deep state bring out everything they have on him for Impeachment prior to election. The scene is set for a provocation for the dogs of war to be let loose. All we can do is prattle on about Brexit and minutia demonstrating our armchair arguments.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Wikikettle June 6, 2019 at 21:47
      Smoke and mirrors. Carnivals. The PTB have the dirt on all the protagonists, apart from which they are all easy game for ‘Al CIA-dah’ hits.
      The CIA runs on filth. JFK was going to close them down; now, it’s too late.
      How much dirt is there on the Clintons, but the Orange Moron knew better than to go after them.

    • David

      prattling about Brexit is one thing, but according to news-reports Mr Brexit left the party by a back door a few minutes before the result declaration last night.

      Labour have clung onto Peterborough in a knife-edge by-election contest, seeing off the Brexit Party by just 683 votes

      strangely, as a newsjunkie, over the last few years I have repeatedly repeatedly been told by British media, en masse, ABC anyone but Corbyn. Slurs, following the wrong historic tribe, being a CZ spook, and all his friends are CZ spooks. being an ‘errorist and regularly breaking bread with ‘errorists, being unintelligent, corrupt etc. Has an allotment, can’t do anything else…..

      looking briefly at those three headlines from the anniversary of European Charter of Human Rights that i posted above

      establishing whistleblowers protection at EU level (Minimum standards to guarantee a high level of whistleblower protection), [UK obvious FAIL, JA]
      promoting electoral rights (Measures to promote free and fair elections, to avoid disinformation and fake news),
      fighting illegal hate speech online [UK again FAILS both of these too]

      All this (failed) anti Corbyn coordinated media campaign is obviously either entirely spontaneous, simultaneously on all channels everywhere, or more correctly IC (intelligence community) matrix led integrity initiative style nobbled media. It seems Britain is VERY contrary to one/all of the headliners of the EU charter of fundamental rights via the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Britain stoops lowest?

      Lisa for labour , back in the real world, mentions that she won, proving that divisive (IC led “politics”) prattle on Brexit did not lose her her seat, she won it by talking about real issues such as Police, fly-tipping, education as a riposte to Brexit, Brexit, Brexit from the nasty party.

      Shame on the (useless) IC, you are not only bugging and burglaring across Britain, but you are now seen to be blatantly active, partial, and woefully misled. What else will come out of your closet of spooky secrets soon?

      At least , small comfort, we have no fear of the BBC, ITV or LBC, CH4 being raided soon

      https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/05/after-assanges-espionage-act-indictment-police-move-against-more-journalists-for-publishing-classified-material/

      but that ‘no-fear’ is mostly that in the non human rights charter conforming UK, most media is apparently IC led and subverted already. That’s quite something to type at 03:45 on a Friday morning, I can’t change this, I personally have no wish to disrupt my government, and I never have previously voted Labour and have no intention to start now.

    • Tatyana

      These women, who come into the high positions (like Ms. Haspel or like Nikky Haley) and play the game of emotions on men, they look like excited agitated chickens.

      Ko ko ko, look at it, it is so scary, oh so scary, poor poisoned children, evil russians have no heart, ko ko ko, etc etc

      I think Mr. Trump is always happy to play the defender and avenger of the poor poisoned children 🙂

  • doug scorgie

    Isa
    June 6, 2019 at 13:08

    “I think that Cassandra may be being played by intelligence services .”
    —————————————–

    I agree ISA.
    We’re talking about Belmarsh high security prison and Assange a VIP (very important prisoner) held in solitary confinement with no access to the outside world and no visitors.

    Apart from Assange looking older than his age he looks reasonably healthy. This is fake news propagated by our beloved security services in my view.

  • Hatuey

    Summing up…

    We all agree that the US Government is going to do everything in its power to prevent Assange defending himself in any fair or effective way. They will invoke CIPA and lock down the courthouse and any jury in the eastern district of Virginia might as well be rigged since just about everybody in that neighbourhood is working for the Pentagon or military or some other part of the state security apparatus.

    Assange though is famous and that makes a big difference. He’s also a journalist and people on here forget that. These things matter. It also matters that he, unlike Manning and others, was never employed by the US government.

    Realistically, Assange is going to need a really good legal team. It will be expensive but we can all donate to that. What are his prospects? I’d say good. I’m not a legal expert but there’s a process open to Assange defined as Jury Nullification Defense which — on the basis that he’s a journalist — would allow him to argue that the law is inapplicable in his specific case.

    US public opinion may be key here. There’s a large sweet spot in US politics where the left and the right meet on civil liberties, issues of freedom of speech, and public interest. Assange can take advantage that sweet spot. If you look at the support base of Trump, they put a lot of emphasis on civil liberties and the importance of the media (fake news, etc.). Don’t assume the right in the US will be against Assange.

    Let’s get rid of the scare stories and nonsense. This is not a death penalty case. If there was a war on and he was in league with the enemy as a federal employee, it very well could be, but that’s not the case here and people should stop promulgating junk like that. And this will be a jury trial, as normal, with all the trappings of US justice and avenues for potential that you’d expect in any other trial.

    • SA

      Hatuey
      “ on the basis that he’s a journalist — would..”
      But haven’t you heard that this exactly one of the things being denied even by rags such as the Guardian, supposedly ‘liberal’ in the old meaning.
      The US makes laws for themselves and another for others. Have you not heard of the redefinition of ‘enemy combatants’ by the Bush administration post 911?

      • Hatuey

        Nobody can deny that Wikileaks is a publisher. Publishers in the The US are protected by the first amendment. They aren’t going to sit back comfortably and watch over 200 years of tradition and protection sweeped aside.

        No publisher in the US has ever been charged in court. It’s worth bearing that in mind.

      • Hatuey

        Incidentally, if you turn this into a blanket attack on the US and that becomes the argument — the US is evil — he doesn’t stand a chance.

        I wish you’d all stop that. Let’s assume you are all the most morally superior people on the face of the earth and forget that stuff. This is a civil rights, first amendment issue. That’s his only chance.

        • pretzelattack

          it’s not a blanket attack on the u.s., it’s an attack on an out of control u.s. intelligence community, yes. why do you have such an interest in defending the intel agencies, or an obviously very flawed u.s. judicial process (not to mention the u.k., wouldn’t want to forget the poodle).

        • SA

          “Incidentally, if you turn this into a blanket attack on the US and that becomes the argument — the US is evil — he doesn’t stand a chance.”

          Exactly Hatuey
          If you followed the trail of destruction that the US has left behind in the world since WW2 than you might begin to understand why you don’t have to claim moral superiority to deduce that there will be no justice for Assange in the US.

          • Hatuey

            SA, when I left university after studying Modern History and International Relations, the only organisation that offered to fund my PhD. was NATO. I swiftly told them that I couldn’t do it because, as I saw it, there was no role for NATO in a post-Cold War world. They responded to that by offering me four times as much money.

            Please believe me when I tell you I have a well developed understanding of US foreign policy and that I am not one for pasting over or skirting the atrocities and injustices they are responsible for in the world.

            None of that is likely to have any bearing on his trial. Although, I’d repeat what i said — if Assange makes America’s evilness his defence, he is finished. It’s one thing to shout about stuff on here but Assange isn’t stupid enough to make that stuff the keystone of his defence.

    • OnlyHalfALooney

      US public opinion may be key here. There’s a large sweet spot in US politics where the left and the right meet on civil liberties, issues of freedom of speech, and public interest.

      The CIA has already fixed “public opinion” by smearing Assange with the “rape” allegations in Sweden. Many people now believe that Assange is some kind of “pervert” and many believe that Assange “helped Putin elect Trump”.

      Yes there are genuine supporters of free speech in the US like Rand Paul. But the mainstream media and Murdoch will do nothing to help Assange, even if Assange’s prosecution is a threat to their own freedoms, so don’t hold your breath.

        • OnlyHalfALooney

          Who knows what Gina Haspel, a documented torturer, has been whispering in his ear. Perhaps, she’s shown Trump photos of dead cats and claimed “Julian Assange did this”.

        • Deb O'Nair

          Trump more recently quoted as saying he “knows nothing” about Wikileaks.

          Conclusion: Quoting Trump on anything is a waste of time.

          • Hatuey

            Not really. His apparent contradictions prove he is malleable. Apparently if 3 people that he respects advise and nudge him in a particular direction, then he will listen and adapt policy.

            I much prefer people like that to tribalists or ideologues who refuse to listen to others or are unwilling to change their opinions.

            I don’t think Trump cares about Assange or Wikileaks. If he loved them before it was because the delivered dirt on Hillary.

          • N_

            You seriously depict Trump as a person who listens to points of view, take things on board, and adapts policy. The reason he makes statements that differ from each other is not that at all. He is not a sane person reviewing the position and changing his mind. The reason is that whatever he wants and thinks he can get at a particular time causes him to insist and to believe that what needs to be true for him to deserve getting it actually is true. That is a mental illness which it is patently obvious that he suffers from.

            Notice how rare it is for the poor guy to speak two sentences in a row without saying that somebody or something is “great” or big or phenomenally huge, usually in comparison with something else. I doubt he can handle most of the ideas that sane people deal with every day.

            When he says “you’re great” he is thinking “I can use you. If you’re male I can get my people to give you a place on the podium not so many levels below mine at the top. You should be so proud of yourself. I’ll even try to pull your arm out of its socket too, to show you you’re welcome in my organisation.” It’s so obvious. “We can do great deals”. The atmosphere in a room much change so much when this madman leaves it.

            I’m not a “news junkie”. Can someone tell me whether Trump was allowed to say much at the D-Day commemorations? I would have thought the grownups would realise that survivors might feel insulted if after travelling to Normandy to where they saw comrades killed, perhaps got wounded themselves, perhaps sustained lifelong injuries, and perhaps it’s the first time they’ve been back for 30 years or even since 1944, they hear an insane jaw-jutting New Yorker (similar in his presentation to the Italian leader Mussolini whom they were fighting against) proclaim how great he is. If I had a family member who took part in that invasion I would not want to subject him to being insulted like that.

          • N_

            Trump’s feeling about himself is probably that he is a mass of utterly unworthy sloshy poop in comparison to his brother Freddy. And I haven’t even mentioned how he wore makeup for his Twitter profile picture.

          • Hatuey

            N, Trump isn’t very different from other presidents. His way with words seems to work with the electorate. Policy-wise, there’s isn’t much between him and say Obama. I’d say that Hilary was more dangerous and probably would have escalated in Syria where Obama basically withdrew.

            It makes no sense to compare Trump or anyone to ideals that exist only in your mind or on some theoretical basis, though. I actually think that’s an illness of sorts and doing that can surely only make you depressed.

            Compare Trump to previous presidents and he becomes quite normal. His election strategy was pretty clever — getting ordinary working class Americans to vote in huge tax cuts for the rich takes cunning. Again, though, par for the course… Clinton and others did the same thing.

          • Johny Conspiranoid

            Hatuey
            “It makes no sense to compare Trump or anyone to ideals that exist only in your mind or on some theoretical basis,”
            Why does it make no sense? Should people not have ideals? Where can they exist if not in someones mind or on a theoretical basis?

          • Hatuey

            Johny, I’m not some sort of shrink. if you want to aimlessly indulge in fantasy, be my guest.

            It makes no sense to hold Trump or anyone up to standards that do not seem to exist in the real world.

          • pretzelattack

            yes hatuey i know. then he changed his position, as is obvious from the u.s. attempts by the doj to get assange to the u.s. more 5 second research, hatuey?

          • Hatuey

            pretezel, the US isn’t one big holistic evil entity. It has a multitude of faces and sides. The people there have good values, by and large, about as good as anyone else’s, I’d say. I believe they are a naturally generous and well-meaning people.

            Britain was the same when it ran the world; on one hand evil and domineering, on the other it produced people like Bertrand Russell.

  • Hieroglyph

    Oh come now. The minor matter of a Swedish court not screwing Assange to the wall is easily rectified. Some random with a law degree, or a former PM, or whoever really, will soon, entirely beyond their remit, put out the arrest warrant. This will be accepted with a truly bizarre alacrity by some paedophi … I mean learned and esteemed UK judge. Probably Assange with have another 6 months in pokey added, just for lolz. And the entire Femsm will nod wisely and explain to us how, essentially, anyone who disagrees is a fool. Sure, honey.

    We may recall that negative selection is a thing, whether in be politics, law, or the media. I don’t want to go all Stalin and query their motives, but I will say they don’t appear terribly competent at their jobs. I think competence is now considered to be a bad thing.

    • Hatuey

      Amusing as your comments were, we have every reason to believe that Sweden will deal with this fairly and it will be left to their independent judiciary like any other legal matter.

      I don’t understand why so many on the dissident left are so keen on slating the Swedish political and judicial system today when before it was either ignored or held up as a good example of how politics and rights might be facilitated.

      • pete

        Re “we have every reason to believe that Sweden will deal with this fairly…”

        I have no idea why “we” should believe that, your belief is clearly not shared here, but even assuming that your belief may be the case there is reason to believe that this extradition will create a bad precedent.
        Even as we discuss this matter plans are in action to enact legislation to prosecute whistle-blowers deemed to have contravened national security in the UK, see: http://www.duncancampbell.org/content/planned-espionage-act-would-jail-whistleblowers-spies

        • Hatuey

          Funny, I’ve never seen Sweden attacked as a corrupt dictatorship before where justice is politicised to the extent that fair trials are impossible…

          Just about every country and indeed business in the world of any significance has legal frameworks in place to stop people leaking secrets and spilling the beans… it’s considered normal and necessary.

          But Assange wouldn’t fall into any of those categories. At least that’s what he should argue. He’s a journalist and wikileaks is a publisher. He isn’t a spy or a traitor and isn’t subject to the same rules and laws that federal employees are subject to.

          As for a bad precedent, I take the view that life as we know it since about 1492 is a long and atrocious sequence of bad precedents. That’s the world we live in. We can sit and cry about what alternative realities might look like or we can try and do some good in this one. On that I’m sure Assange would agree with me.

          • pretzelattack

            oh look another gap in your knowledge. sweden helped the u.s. send prisoners to various middle eastern or east european countries to be tortured. do you get paid for this, or do you just troll for the amusement?

          • Johny Conspiranoid

            “Just about every country and indeed business in the world of any significance has legal frameworks in place to stop people leaking secrets and spilling the beans… it’s considered normal and necessary”
            It is not considered normal and necessary for the leaking of any kind of secret held by anybody to be a criminal offence, so there are limits to what should and should not be considered normal and necessary. This is a matter for public debate, which is what we are seeing here. Perhaps the intended prosecution of Assange is outside those limits. “At least that’s what he should argue” and why would he be wrong?
            “As for a bad precedent, I take the view that life as we know it since about 1492 is a long and atrocious sequence of bad precedents. That’s the world we live in. We can sit and cry about what alternative realities might look like or we can try and do some good in this one.”
            Wouldn’t doing something about this one involve not setting any more bad precedents and trying to reverse the existing ones?

          • Twirlip

            “As for a bad precedent, I take the view that life as we know it since about 1492 is a long and atrocious sequence of bad precedents.”

            Presumably you mean they are atrocious as judged by reference to “ideals that exist only in your mind or on some theoretical basis”? 😉

          • Hatuey

            Twirlip, no. I’m comparing to real existing historical periods in places which were much less destructive and disturbing.

          • Hatuey

            Johny, not only do I acknowledge the point you make, I agree, and I think that sort of argument is the way Assange should go here as a journalist/publisher.

            You’re obviously smart enough to know that the usual rules and laws that govern society do not apply to the military, though. And, of course, that’s why it is considered patriotic to drop fire on innocent peasants on one hand and deemed serial killing on the other. Accept that — and, since it’s true, you can’t deny it — and it is easy to join the dots so that it becomes perfectly normal and necessary to guard secrets and put frameworks in place to protect them.

            I remember Churchill said something along the lines of “the truth is so precious it needs a bodyguard of lies to protect it…” I think that sums it up, even if I probably misquoted him…

  • Sharp Ears

    In the pipeline with the court hearing due next week. The b******s have been spouting off about ‘freedom’ all week.

    WikiLeaks warns US Justice Department preparing more charges against Assange
    7 June 2019

    The US Justice Department is preparing even more charges against journalist and publisher Julian Assange, WikiLeaks warned Thursday.

    The charges, WikiLeaks said, would be based on the testimony of Sigurdur Thordarson, an FBI informant previously convicted of fraud, who recently travelled to the United States to answer questions aimed at preparing a new indictment.

    /..
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/06/07/assa-j07.html

    • N_

      As well as being a convicted fraudster who stole from Wikileaks, Sigurdur Thordarson has on two separate occasions been convicted of sex crimes against the underaged. He was tried and found guilty the first time, and the second time he pleaded guilty. Both times he was sentenced to jail.

      Is he actually out of jail yet in Iceland, or will he return to his cell after his jaunt to the US?

  • michael norton

    As the Swedish prosecutors are no longer allowed to apply for EAW
    it would seem an opportunity for the London brief of Julian to apply to the high court to have his bail jumping term, quashed.

    Adrian Darbishire QC, for Mr Johnson, had earlier said: ‘The only rational conclusion which could be reached (by the district judge) was that the prosecution was politically motivated and, therefore, vexatious.’

    So perhaps the brief of Julian Assange could take a leafo out of the book of the brief of Mr.Johnson
    that the prosecution was politically motivated and, therefore, vexatious.

      • michael norton

        pretzelattack, if the judge is thought to be politically motivated, that would be for the brief of Julian Assange to point out in the high court, when he attempts to get the bail jumping offence quashed.
        Judges also have to obey the law.

      • Tony

        I don’t understand how a judge who had never met him before, and only heard him speak a few words at the hearing, could describe him as a “narcissist”. To me, that particular judge has committed a breach of court procedure, should be disciplined, and his decision should be quashed, with a new hearing arranged. The fact that nothing is happening on this, along with the absurd media coverage, should tell anyone (even Hatuey) that things aren’t being proceeded with in even the remotely correct way here.

  • Forgotten

    I don’t know why it is okay for the state to be publicly seen as committing violence of the worst kind toward individuals, and indeed for this to be seen and presented as lawful in the media even, when the state also expects law and order from its citizenry.

    Why is the state’s hypocrisy always okay?

    The UN has effectively charged UK with gross abuse toward this person. Why aren’t Hunt and others in jail? I really wish the UN had the proper powers to discipline criminals who hide behind some authority status.

    It makes me physically sick that someone (doesn’t matter who it is) has been tortured so badly simply for caring about the truth and wanting to promote peace.

    And there are people out there that are proud that humans are no longer neanderthals? That we have made progress?

    A state that is extremely violent, and that no longer even cares about being seen as such, has no moral authority. That is what Britain has become. At least it once cared about its image. What is shocking is that this is no longer the case.

    I suppose that is part of the Brexit effect. Piss on everything, including your mother and the truth. I do try to understand the anger, and I am sympathetic toward those who have been so indoctrinated by the Brexit ideology. But one cannot help but feel sorry for sheep that have been so misled. Britain’s criminal elites will just be taking them for yet another ride.

    • BrianFujisan

      Well Said Forgotten..

      And aint there So Many other areas the UN should be enforcing International Laws.. in the M.E for example

    • Johny Conspiranoid

      So the UN gets the power to enforce law, making it a global state which then behaves like every other state in history (New World Order).

      We know nothing about the behaviour of the neanderthals so why do they keep getting stereotyped?

      • Forgotten

        Johny Conspiranoid,

        Quite right. Should not have badmouthed those neanderthals. Should have just been more precise and said ‘ignorant and complacent people that look the other way when murdering bastards do their work’. That just sounds a bit long-winded, I suppose.

        Your point about the UN does seem a little ignorant though. Nobody says it is a perfect institution, and that there are not sinister power imbalances and all sorts of other problems there.

        But when rogue states get away with arbitrary detention, weapons profiteering, mass murder, financing terrorism, and all those other crimes that it claims to be opposed to on account of being so democratic and superior, there ought to be someone on the outside with some semblance of impartiality to let the world know that it thinks this is wrong.

        Your libertarianism is way over-rated, seriously problematic from a moral point of view, and a fool’s game.

  • VeteranParachute

    We had those photos smuggled out from Belmarsh – Assange looked a bit better than was being reported?

    Still awaiting an article on Trump. Apparently he’s waging a war on the Deep State. And Globalism.

    • Isa

      I don’t doubt the photos or videos authenticity . I just honestly doubt they came from an inmate . It looks pretty much as an intelligence job to pass an image that he is well , his lawyers are not to be trusted , he’s not sick , etc .

      • VeteranParachute

        Without doubt it was an intentional leak, through whatever channels. As you do not doubt the authenticity, Assange seems far better than we have been told, what is your argument?

        • Isa

          The pictures are one month old . That’s the whole point of making one think that oh he looks better than what we’ve been told . That’s my view.

        • Goose

          It could be a statement of how he’s in relatively good health, meant for his supporters. A kind of self-issued ‘proof of life’ thing.

          Yulia Skripal’s unauthorised phone call was possibly driven by fear? If you recall straight after it emerged she and her father suddenly had their health status changed . They were ‘out of danger’ despite being given little chance of survival just a few days earlier in official statements.

          • Isa

            But goose we know via his lawyers he is in hospital very unwell and that he isn’t at all well . But I agree the message is that oh he is well , there was no reason to miss his videolink with Sweden or no reason to postpone his extradition hearing next week . It reeks of trying to break his support outside . But good parallel with Yulia , although I always thought she looked petrified .

          • Goose

            But were anything serious to happen to him, such proof of seemingly normal social interaction would make people really question what’s happened. Were anyone here in his position, with his powerful enemies, you’d want footage like that out there. To prevent a narrative being developed that he arrived at the prison psychologically broken somehow.

    • N_

      After his seven years’ captivity in the embassy I’m not surprised he’s got the strength and stamina to cope with Belmarsh. As for how the strain is getting to him physically and mentally, you can’t tell from those videos.

      • michael norton

        We were told Julian is being hekld on his own, in those pictures he is with others.
        Some clarification from the Justice Secretary, is called for.
        Is Julian Assange being held on his own?

  • Isa

    On the raptly video there was an imprint of text for a twitter handle : Juliana 42637234 :

    https://twitter.com/juliana42636234

    The following account came up and set up just days ago . Asking for 150k donations and for 50k followers and twitting from prison ?
    You can check the tweets and account and make up your mind .
    This is getting stranger and by the minute . I don’t like it .

    • BrianFujisan

      Isa

      It’s Got to the stage I don’t know what think.. Even if it’s staged video.. at least Julian looks ok. I Dunno.

      maybe the best course is to wait for Craig, or Julian’s Lawyers to comment.

      • Isa

        Yes . I’m just uneasy . I feel this is to make people say oh but he’s well , when in reality he’s in prison hospital at the moment and for at least one week . I hope his lawyers visit soon or that Craig has news soon .

  • David

    Germany is (again) getting ready to go for the free press, according to The Committee to Protect Journalists. (they have written ten or more Assange supportive articles since the last decade…)

    Getman BND has always wanted to be a sixth-eye, (anyone who has listened to the amazing Düsseldorf Toten Hosen knows how accurate they can be, how amazingly ‘British’ , https://www.thefullwiki.org/Learning_English,_Lesson_One)

    This current attack, full slippery national socialist on journalism, is reported here https://cpj.org/2019/06/german-draft-legislation-would-enable-intelligence.php

    Under current German law, journalists, along with priests, lawyers, doctors, and members of parliament, are granted special protected status to limit their surveillance by intelligence agencies, according to those reports. The new legislation would remove some of the protections for journalists

    trojans for everyone, tier one matrix peer for the BND , what about the constitution?

  • Wikikettle

    George Galloway makes an ” Announcement: The Mother of All Talkshows UNLEASHED ” on Youtube explaining his sacking from Talk Radio and also among other subjects mentions Craig, the Skripal’s, Peterborough and D-Day.

    • lysias

      I wonder if Galloway would have won the by-election. Why did the Brexit Party reject his candidature? I understood that Farage reacted favorably to his offer.

      • Wikikettle

        Apart from wanting to leave the EU, George has nothing in common with the Brexit/Ukip policies. Lot of people would like to see him back in the labour party where he really and still belongs. Corbyn could do with his support against the likes of Hilary.

        • N_

          I thought the Brexit Party literally only had one policy, namely get the hell out of the EU, which Gorgeous agrees with. However, it is positioned as a far right “populist” son-of-UKIP party, albeit with little interest in appealing to the tiny “you’re gonna get your ‘ead kicked in” football hooligan demographic that adores Tommy Robinson, and for that reason no left wing person should consider supporting it for one minute, even if they want Britain to leave the EU in some kind of “Lexit”. How come Gorgeous doesn’t get that?

          • Hatuey

            It’s you that doesn’t get George.

            George sees politics as a business. Everything’s about him. He’s the director, the manager, the union leader, the worker, the product, everything.

      • Wikikettle

        George was man enough to admit his prediction was wrong. He is no ‘Sir Richard Rich’. Both films staring Charlton Heston and Paul Scofield, who play Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s play are the examples to real men not little men unlike the Richard Rich’s of today. Roy Kinnear plays different charactors , from head of jury to exicutioner. Talking to the camera, holding a mirror up to our cowardly walking on by…

1 2 3