Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Eight BIG problems with the "case" against Assange (MUST-READ by Naomi Wolf) and comment by Julian Assange's mother

Expand Messages
  • Romi Elnagar
    There are many reasons why the case against Julian Assange is infuriating, but one of the worst for me is the fact that over half of all sexual assault cases
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 20, 2013
      There are many reasons why the case against Julian Assange is infuriating, but one of the worst for me is the fact that over half of all sexual assault cases never reported by the victims.  This is in large part due to the treatment by victims by the police. When I think of all the rape kits that are gathering dust in police warehouses, the attention that the governments of the US, Sweden and Britain are giving to this "case" is worse IMHO than ludicrous.
      It is criminal. If I thought many police departments cared, this "case" could be taken seriously, but they don't...
      Anyway, both Naomi Wolf and Assange's mother's comments are excellent.

      Romi

      http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates



      Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
      by Naomi Wolf
      Exclusive to News from Underground

      Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has
      confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in
      its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is
      important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of
      Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.
      Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University,
      explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been
      working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig
      also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’
      lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other
      name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice.
      In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to
      Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.
      Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five
      years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s
      shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated
      as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish
      police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.
      Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:
      1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
      Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or
      threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no
      indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence.
      The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report,
      are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a
      lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was
      asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex
      with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and
      subsequent discussion indicates consent.)
      The Assange transcript is therefore anomalous, as it does not
      suggest in any way that either woman was unconsenting, or felt
      threatened. On this basis alone, therefore, the Assange transcript is
      completely aberrant.
      2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.
      The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.
      This is completely unheard-of in sex crime procedures; and the burden should be on Clare Mongomery, QC, or Marianne Ny, to produce a single
      other example of this being permitted.
      Never will two victims be allowed by police to come in and tell their stories together–even, or especially, if the stories are about one man.
      Indeed, this is a great frustration to those who advocate for rape
      victims. You can have seven alleged victims all accusing the same guy —
      and none will be permitted to tell their stories together.
      It doesn’t matter if they coordinated in advance as the Assange
      accusers did, or if they are close friends and came in together: the
      police simply will not take their complaints together or even in the
      same room. No matter how much they may wish to file a report together,
      their wishes won’t matter: the women will be separated, given separate
      interview times and even locations, and their cases will be processed
      completely separately.
      The prosecutor, rather than being able to draw on both women’s
      testimony, will actually have to struggle to get the judge to allow a
      second or additional accusation or evidence from another case.
      Usually other such evidence will NOT be allowed. Miss A would have
      her case processed and then Miss W — with absolutely no ability for the
      prosecutor to draw form one set of testimony to the next.
      The reason for this is sound: it is to keep testimony from
      contaminating separate trials–a source of great frustration to
      prosecutors and rape victim advocates.
      Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and
      policy.
      3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.
      There’s another remarkable aberration in this transcript: the report
      of a former boyfriend of “Miss A,” testifying that she’d always used a
      condom in their relationship.
      Now, as one who has supported many rape victims through the reporting process, I have to say that the inclusion of this utterly atypical–and, in fact, illegal–note will make anyone who has counselled rape victims
      through the legal process’ feel as though her head might explode.
      There’s a rape shield law in Sweden (as there is throughout Europe)
      that prevents anyone not involved in the case to say anything to the
      police, whether it be positive or negative, about the prior sexual
      habits of the complainant. No matter how much a former or current
      boyfriend may want to testify about his girlfriends’ sex practices —
      even if that woman wants him to — the courts will, rightly, refused to
      hear it, or record it, or otherwise allow it in the record.
      4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.
      Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically
      connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances
      because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case
      because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared
      attorney.
      So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing
      in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be
      extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect
      to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.
      5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.
      No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to
      represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man,
      for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.
      There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.
      Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own
      clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.
      6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.
      Typically, if a woman needs a lawyer in addition to the prosecutor
      who is pursuing her case (as in the Swedish system) she will be advised
      by rape victim advocates, the prosecutor and the police to use a
      criminal attorney — someone who handles rape cases or other kinds of
      assault, who is familiar with the judges and the courts in these cases.
      She will never hire a high-powered corporate attorney who does not
      specialize in these cases or work with the local court that would be
      hearing her sex crime case if it ever got to trial. Given that a law
      firm such as this one charges about four hundred euros an hour, and a
      typical rape case takes eight months to a year to get through the courts – given that legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros, which
      young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to
      ask: who is paying the legal bills?
      7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her
      assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant
      to take medical tests.
      The two women went to police to ask if they could get Assange to take an HIV test.
      Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was
      asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative. This is
      utterly unheard of and against standard sex crime policy. The Police do
      not act as medical mediators for STD testing, since rapists are
      dangerous and vindictive. A victim is NEVER advised to manage, even with police guidance, any further communication with her assailant that is
      not through formal judicial channels. Under ordinary procedures, the
      women’s wishes for the alleged assailant to take medical tests would be
      discouraged by rape victim advocates and deterred and disregarded by
      police.
      First, the State normally has no power to compel a man who has not
      been convicted, let alone formally charged, to take any medical tests
      whatsoever. Secondly, rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is
      for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s
      test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit
      processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged
      victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels.
      8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active
      investigation because they face punishment for doing so.
      The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to
      the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are
      police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Often, frustratingly, rape
      victims themselves cannot get their own full set of records related to
      their cases. In normal circumstances, the leaking of those transcripts
      would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police and
      prosecutors who had access to them. Any official who leaks such
      confidential papers faces serious penalties; lawyers who do so can be
      disbarred. And yet no one in this case is being investigated or facing
      any consequences. It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were
      leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from
      higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.
      Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.
      And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl
      Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush
      regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into
      Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.

      http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/comment-page-1/#comment-19975


      Comments to “Eight BIG PROBLEMS with the “case” against Assange (MUST-READ by Naomi Wolf)”


      *
      * August 20, 2012 at 8:46 am
      Jettatura says:
      Christine Assange, mother of WikiLeaks
      founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, has spent many long months
      reaching out to supporters and urging them to contact their local
      political representatives. Recognising that many politicians still do
      not know the true story behind WikiLeaks and her son’s legal battles,
      she asks supporters to give them the facts and request their assistance.
      Christine has been using her @AssangeC Twitter account and the
      #fact4mp hashtag to post the following important talking points for
      supporters to disseminate:
      1. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have not been charged with any crime in any country in the world. See http://justice4assange.com
      2. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been recognized for quality
      investigative journalism with many prestigious awards, including:
      - Julian was unanimously given the Sam Adams Award in 2010, for
      Integrity in Intelligence (Iraq War Logs) by a panel of retired senior
      U.S. military and intelligence officers.
      - Julian won the Amnesty UK Media Award in 2009 for the “Cry of
      Blood” report into extra-judicial killings and disappearances in Kenya.
      - Julian won The Economist magazine’s Freedom of Expression Award in 2008.
      - Julian won the Sydney Peace Foundation’s Gold Medal in 2011 “For
      exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights”. The
      Sydney Peace Foundation has only awarded 4 Gold Medals in 16 years, with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama being 2 of the other 3 recipients.
      - Julian won the Martha Gellhorn Prize For Journalism in 2011: “He is brave, determined and independent and a true agent of people not power… [WikiLeaks'] goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and
      finest tradition of journalism.”
      - Julian won a Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011.
      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange for more.
      3. WikiLeaks has a perfect record regarding information reliability. No government has denied the authenticity of any documents.
      4. WikiLeaks redacts its documents, so to date not one person has been physically harmed by its publications.
      5. WikiLeaks exposes government and corporate corruption, fraud,
      shady deals, war crimes, torture, and kidnapping. It is in the public
      interest to know these things.
      6. WikiLeaks partnered with The Guardian, New York Times, Der
      Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais to publish Cablegate. Why target only
      WikiLeaks?
      7. WikiLeaks acts in accordance with traditional journalism. It publishes information given by various sources.
      8. WikiLeaks acts like traditional media but protects its sources with a secure anonymous Drop Box.
      9. WikiLeaks is a legal, legitimate, online news publisher,
      recognized as such by other journalist organizations worldwide. In 2012, WikiLeaks is partnered with nearly 100 media organisations around the
      world.
      10. WikiLeaks is a non-profit independent publisher funded by
      donations from ordinary citizens from around the world. Because
      WikiLeaks believes in transparency its financial records are publicly
      accountable.
      11. WikiLeaks goal is altruistic: “Justice Through Transparency.”
      WikiLeaks is a catalyst for democracy movements around the world.
      12. WikiLeaks launched in 2006 to provide safety for whistleblowers
      in Third World regimes and dictatorships, and to inform the world of
      their plight.
      13. For the first four years, WikiLeaks published government and corporate wrong-doings from many countries.
      14. In 2010 WikiLeaks received files for the U.S. Collateral Murder
      video, Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War logs, and U.S. Embassy cables.
      15. The U.S. war videos and documents revealed war crimes and lying
      by the U.S. government, regarding civilian casualties and war progress.
      16. U.S. cables revealed government and corporate exploitation,
      bullying, and manipulation of other governments (as well as good actions by U.S. officials).
      17. The cables revealed and confirmed to people WHO in their own
      governments and corporations was involved in shady wrong-doings.
      18. WikiLeaks exposed the attempted ALP “Clean Feed” internet censorship plan for Australia.
      19. The Australian government promoted “Clean Feed” as a way to
      filter child porn. The police opposed this as the images were
      peer-to-peer (not websites).
      20. WikiLeaks published the “Clean Feed” blacklist, which included
      politically contentious sites, anti-abortion sites, and euthanasia sites as well as WikiLeaks.
      21. “Clean Feed” was abandoned as a direct result of WikiLeaks’ exposure of its fundamentally undemocratic political nature.
      22. WikiLeaks exposed ALP Senator Mark Arbib as a protected source
      for the U.S. government for 4 years. Arbib was involved in an ALP coup
      that overthrew an elected Australian Prime Minister.
      23. A 2007 WikiLeaks cable showed that the Australian government was
      risking the Great Barrier Reef, and secretly wavering penalties for U.S. tankers breaching laws in Torres Strait.
      24. In line with WikiLeaks’ harm-minimization procedures, WikiLeaks
      asked the U.S. State Department to help with cable redactions. They
      refused.
      25. Note the timing:
      5/4/10 Collateral Murder video released
      24/6/10 Gillard coup
      25/7/10 Afghan Diaries released
      20/8/10 Sex allegations surface
      22/10/10 Iraq War logs released
      28/11/10 Cablegate released
      18 August 2010 (two days before the sex allegations) Anders Hellner, a senior policy adviser to the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute, told
      Swedish TV News Rapport: “The situation is escalating because an
      official Swedish party which is represented at the European Parliament
      (the Pirate Party, which had announced it would host WikiLeaks servers)
      is taking up what the U.S views is a very controversial role. The
      Americans are looking to stop this somehow.”
      26. After the Afghan War Diary release, Julian visited Sweden to
      obtain residency and base WikiLeaks there (because they have good
      whistleblower laws).
      27. The U.S. was aware of more WikiLeaks releases to come and wrote threatening letters. Julian warned of entrapment plans.
      28. Woman AA invited Julian to speak in Sweden at a seminar about Afghanistan in mid August 2010
      29. Woman AA offered Julian her flat to stay in as she was going to be away but returned early.
      30. Woman SW stated she went to seminar to meet Julian & invited him to stay at her place.
      31. Both women have stated to police and media that sex was consensual and non-violent.
      32. Exculpatory evidence (txts 2 friends) show women had no complaints re sex till finding out about each other.
      33. Evidence (100+ txts btwn AA and SW) speak of revenge, making money, and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to press.
      34. AA takes SW to visit a police station, not close by, but where her friend Officer Irmeli Krans works.
      35. Officer Krans stayed back hours after shift ended to interview SW.
      36. Swedish police breach all their own procedures interviewing women AA & SW.
      37. Police interviews with women AA & SW were not recorded (against procedure).
      38. SW was so upset that police were going to allege rape, she does not sign her interview statement.
      39. SW has stated she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint.
      40. In Sweden, consensual, non-violent sex can be legally defined as “rape”.
      41. On the same day, 1st prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape.
      42. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the
      tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
      43. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” + “rape” causing irreparable harm to Julian’s reputation.
      44. Next day, after reviewing the file, Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation.
      45. “I consider there are no grounds 4 suspecting he has committed rape,” said Eva Finne, the Chief Prosecutor.
      46. The investigation into the lesser allegations of harassment only continued.
      47. Julian offered himself for interview on 30/8/10. Police promised not to unlawfully leak interview to the media again.
      48. Julian’s police interview unlawfully turned up in the tabloid Expressen again the next day.
      49. Julian and his witnesses’ interviews are videotaped while the women and their witnesses are not.
      50. The witness list becomes unbalanced against Julian as police do not follow up interviews with his witnesses.
      51. Police continue to leak file to tabloid media redacting sections favourable to Julian or unfavourable to women.
      52. The interpreter in police interrogation Gun Von Krusenstjerna was not authorized by relevant authority.
      53. Swedish Social Democrat politician Claus Borgstrum is appointed as lawyer for AA & SW.
      54. Claus Borgstrum and partner Thomas Bodstrum run a thriving legal practice around rape cases.
      55. Officer Krans, Borgstrum, Bodstrum and AA are all members of the Swedish Social Democrats Party.
      56. One month after the Assange sex allegations, they all stood for election on a sexual offences reform platform.
      57. Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman (retired) says: “Mr
      Borgstrum is a politician whose platform is associated with radical
      feminist activism, and he has developed a legal practice around acting
      for complainants in rape cases. In recent years, elements of the Social
      Democrats Party, including one of the complainants (AA) who is a
      well-known and aspiring social democrat politician, and her lawyer Mr
      Borgstrum and some public officials like Ms Ny, have taken the lead
      amending Swedish law, so as to try to make it more favourable to women.
      It is a fact that people like Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrum have
      worked in co-operation to produce our new, more stringent sexual
      offences laws.”
      58. Borgstrum appealed the decision to dismiss the rape investigation to prosecutor Marianne Ny.
      59. Julian Assange was not informed about the appeal, so he had no opportunity to make submissions.
      60. On the 1st of September 2010, Marianne Ny granted the appeal and reinstated the rape investigation.
      61. “It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and
      therefore didn’t want to file a complaint… He is not violent and I do
      not feel threatened by him,” woman AA told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet
      on 21st August 2010.
      62. The alleged “deliberately torn” condom (submitted as evidence by AA) contained NO DNA from either AA or JA.
      63. There are significant differences between the SW’s original statement and the one that was released to the media.
      64. Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet’s application for access to police
      file was granted on Sept 1st 2010. Julian’s Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig’s
      applications for access to the police file (in September-November) were
      denied.
      65. Julian remained in Sweden for 5 weeks to answer the allegations
      against him. Through his lawyer, Mr Hurtig, Julian made proactive
      attempts to arrange an interview with the Swedish prosecutor. Prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for interview before giving him
      permission to leave Sweden on September 15th 2010.
      66. In September 22nd 2010, an interview was finally agreed to by
      Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny for September 29th 2010. The US Pentagon
      announced a 120 man team dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks, ahead of the release of the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate. Julian was
      maintaining a low profile regarding threats to his security and could
      not be contacted and informed of the September 29th interview date.
      Julian left Sweden on September 27th 2010 for a pre-arranged business
      meeting with Cablegate media partner Der Spiegel. Julian didn’t “flee”
      Sweden. He stayed in Sweden a total of 37 days, after these allegations
      delayed his business overseas. He left with official Swedish permission.
      67. On September 29th 2010, Julian phoned his lawyer to report that
      his luggage (including three laptops) had disappeared on the
      Stolkholm-Berlin flight. His Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig then informed
      Julian (for the first time) of the 28th September interview. Julian
      offered to return to Sweden for an interview on the 9th or 10th of
      October. This was rejected because it was the weekend. Julian then
      offered to return to Sweden on October 11th 2010. This was rejected as
      “too far away”.
      68. In October-November 2010, Julian was in London working on the
      Iraq War Logs release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners
      The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais, and the New York Times.
      The WikLeaks Iraq War Logs were released on October 23rd 2010. On
      October 27th, the CIA refused to either confirm or deny suggestions of
      plans to assassinate Julian. Julian had been staying at the Frontline
      Club (a London club for journalists) during much of October and November 2010. He conducted several talks during this period, including an
      address at the UN in Geneva.
      69. In October-November 2010 Julian’s UK lawyers offered him for
      interview under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Scheme between the UK
      and Sweden. Swedish prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for
      interview by the usual MLA protocol.
      70. On November 2nd 2010, Julian’s lawyers informed U.K police that he could be contacted through them for the legal process.
      71. Despite refusing to interview Julian for seven weeks, Sweden was
      granted a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to question him (November 18th,
      2010).
      72. Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny also sought to have Julian held incommunicado pending a future trial.
      73. An EAW is used for prosecution, not questioning. Julian’s EAW is
      highly irregular. “An EAW should not be used for the purposes of
      investigation.” – UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights, June
      2011.
      74. November 20th 2010 Despite being informed of Julian Assange’s
      whereabouts, Sweden authorized Interpol to make a PUBLIC Red Notice for
      him.
      75. “I consider it inappropriate and disproportionate that Ms Ny
      sought an Interpol Arrest Warrant and EAW for Mr Assange” said expert
      witness (retired) Swedish judge Britta Sundberg-Weitman. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an Interpol Red Notice and an EAW for a sex
      offence involved a repeat offending paedophile.
      76. November 26th 2010 Sweden issued an EAW for Julian (2 days before WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate). This would have lead to
      Julian’s arrest within 10 days but the warrant was invalid and had to be re-issued on December 2nd 2010.
      77. November 27th 2010 The U.S State Department sent an intimidating
      letter in reply to a letter from Julian requesting input regarding
      harm-minimization from Cablegate.
      78. November 28th 2010 WikiLeaks commenced ppublishing the U.S. diplomatic cables (a.k.a. Cablegate).
      79. WikiLeaks US cables revealed secret dealings between U.S. and
      Swedish officials to bypass the democratic process in Sweden. Sweden
      secretly agreed to allow U.S. access to large amounts of data on Swedish citizens. Swedish MP Camilla Lindberg resigned in protest, declaring:
      “By selling out its own people, the government has sought to curry the
      favour of the U.S. Little by little we continue to dismantle democracy.”
      80. Karl Rove, former political adviser to U.S. President George
      Bush, is a political adviser to Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick
      Reinfeldt. Rove quit U.S. politics in disgrace after orchestrating
      vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. Karl Rove is also
      good friends with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
      81. November 29th 2010: U.S. politicians ‘declared war’ on Wikieaks:
      “Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Why
      was he not pursued with the same urgency as Al Qaeda?” – Sarah Palin.
      “I would look at this as a military issue, with potentially military
      action against him and his organization.” – Tom Shaffer, former Defence
      Intelligence Agency official, Fox News.
      “Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” – Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential candidate.
      82. November 30th 2010: Interpol issued a Red Notice for Julian Paul Assange to 188 countries.
      83. More threats from politicians:
      “Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think
      Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. … I
      would not feel unhappy if Assange ‘disappeared’.” – Tom Flannagan,
      former senior adviser to Canadian PM, November 30th 2010.
      “We’re at war. I hope (US Attorney General) Eric Holder… will… get
      our laws in line with being at war.” – Republican Senator Lindsey
      Graham, November 30th 2010.
      Julian Assange should be “prosecuted as a terrorist.” – Senator Rick Santorum, GOP presidential candidate, November 30th 2010.
      “He should be treated as an enemy combatant. WikiLeaks should be closed down.” – Newt Gingrich, 5 December 2010.
      “A dead man can’t leak stuff… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” – Bob Beckel, Fox News, December 6th 2010.
      84. December 7th 2010: Obama administration pressures Paypal, Visa
      and Mastercard to block donations to WikiLeaks, shutting off 95% of
      their funds. Western Union and Bank of America followed soon afterwards. In early December 2010 Paypal also froze 60,000 euros of WikiLeaks
      donations held by the German charity Wau Holland Foundation.
      On December 6th 2010 Julian’s Defence Fund (containing 31,000 euros)
      was frozen by Swiss Bank Post Finance. The UN High Commissioner for
      Human Rights and UN Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression
      condemned the WikiLeaks blockade.
      “The financial blockade is a free speech issue,” said Trevor Timm,
      activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The government,
      realizing they couldn’t charge WikiLeaks with a crime for publishing
      classified information – because all newspapers do that – decided to
      pressure private companies like Amazon, Visa, and MasterCard into
      banning WikiLeaks.”
      The suppression of donations is essentially an end-run around the
      First Amendment, asserted Timm. “The government is not technically doing the censoring – they’re leaving the dirty work to private corporations. Mainstream newspapers like The New York Times or the Wall Street
      Journal print classified information all the time. It’s been happening
      for decades, and no one has ever been prosecuted for it.”
      On January 14th 2011 the U.S.Treasury declined Senator Peter King’s
      request to blacklist WikiLeaks or Assange as there were no grounds to do so.
      In July 2011 WikiLeaks lodged a complaint about the financial
      blockade with the European Commissioner for infringement of EU
      Anti-Trust Laws. They are still awaiting an answer.
      It is estimated that since the blockade WikiLeaks has been prevented from receiving over $20 million in donations.
      85. The U.S government also pressured Internet providers to terminate services to WikiLeaks. For example, on December 1st 2010, Amazon
      removed WikiLeaks from their storage servers. On December 2nd the DNS
      register serving WikiLeaks.org stopped pointing to the domain. On
      December 20th Apple removed an app that allowed iPhone users to search
      WikiLeaks cables.
      86. December 5th 2010 Prosecutor Ny mislead the public by stating:
      “Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in
      London.” She made the same allegation in a December 3rd interview with
      TIME magazine.
      The use of a video link is an established protocol per Swedish ruling (SC-NJA (2007) 337), which also states that it is disproportionate to
      issue EAW’s for questioning when a person is co-operating. The proper,
      proportionate, and legal means of requesting a person for questioning in UK is through the Mutual Legal Assistance Scheme. Since Julian’s UK
      house arrest in 2010, Swedish prosecutor Ny has rejected ALL his offers
      to be interviewed at Scotland Yard or the Swedish Embassy.
      87. On December 7th 2010 Julian went voluntarily with his lawyer to
      the Kentish Town police station in London to answer the EAW. The EAW was the first document Julian received from Swedish Prosecutors in English
      (a translation was provided by UK police). This was also the first time
      Julian had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and
      potential charges against him.
      88. The EAW and Interpol Red Notice were issued just before and
      executed just after Cablegate began publishing. Had Julian returned to
      Sweden in October/November he would have been held incommunicado in
      prison and we may not have seen Cablegate.
      89. On December 7th 2010 Julian went into voluntary custody in the
      UK. He spent ten days in solitary confinement in the maximum security
      Wandsworth Prison. Bail of £180,000 was put up for Julian, but Sweden
      opposed bail and Judge Riddle refused it.
      90. December 8th 2010 The Independent newspaper cited “diplomatic
      sources” confirming informal talks between Sweden and the US about
      extraditing Julian.
      Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. Attorney General stated: “When one is
      accused of a very serious crime, it is common to hold him in respect of a lesser crime, while you assemble evidence of a second crime.” (The
      Guardian 7/12/10)
      91. On December 14th 2010 Julian was granted bail of $374,000 (cash
      and sureties) and surrendered his passport. He was placed under house
      arrest with a nightly curfew, fitted with an electronic ankle tracking
      device, and ordered to report daily to the local police station. The
      Swedish government opposed bail and filed an appeal, so Julian went back to prison for 48 hrs till the appeal hearing on December 16th 2010.
      Sweden lost the appeal and Julian was released on bail till the EAW
      hearing, set down for January 11th 2011.
      *
      UK Supreme Court Agreed Statement of Facts (i.e. facts agreed by Swedish authorities): http://t.co/x62F9ah2
      Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin’s brief to Australian MPs on political agenda, U.S and Sweden, entrapment: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
      Lawyer Jen Robinson brief to Australian MPs on facts, timeline, players, concerns re Sweden fit up re WikiLeaks: http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
      Lawyer Peter Kemp brief to Australian MPs 2/3/11 re breaches of legal and human rights, political agendas, extradition: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
      Comprehensive verifiable facts and media resources on Swedish extradition and US Extradition: http://www.justice4assange.com
      OzWikiWatch, a site to help Australians contact their MPs and
      Senators and build a register of political support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: http://ozwikiwatch.blogspot.com
      2012-06-20 Swedish extradition facts from Christine Assange
      Julian Assange’s mother Christine recently tweeted the following
      facts about extraditions involving the US, the UK, Sweden, and
      Australia.
      1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot
      backed new Extradition Act Amendments making it easier for U.S.A to
      extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it.
      2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences.
      3. The protection of “political” motives has been weakened. If the
      charge is “terrorism” then “political” cannot apply to prevent
      extradition.
      4. The U.S.A. recently expanded its definition of “terrorist” to include peaceful protesters – “Low level terrorism”.
      5. Under the new NDAA legislation, the U.S became a police state –
      citizens and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite
      detention applies.
      6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish
      classified documents. Obama is now trying to label media who do so as
      terrorists.
      7. Modifications to the act included changing “protection from death
      penalty” to “likelihood the death penalty would be carried out”.
      8. Note that the U.S.A is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that top 5.
      9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months imprisonment.
      10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e. evidence).
      11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track “Temporary Surrender” clause.
      12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process.
      13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.
      14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.
      15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.
      16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström,
      the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.
      17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam
      to protect Julian from “Temporary Surrender” to the U.S.A via Sweden.
      Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.