11 Sept 2012

Living in Denial

Yes it's Assange time once more!
This time due to the bewildering logic of denial I keep finding in the likes of David Allen Green and other anti Assange foghorns.

One aspect of the insane arguments between Assange supporters and haters are "facts".
Both sides like to claim they have all the relevant facts. Of course. Being an Assange supporter I'm amused by the denial of simple fact I encounter.

Take a really simple one:
On the same day the women were first interviewed concerning charges against Assange, First prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.

This is a simple statement of facts that have been recorded. But it's not a fact Assange haters are very comfortable with. You can see the bizarre lengths some haters will go to evade acceptance in this little snippet: http://storify.com/Anoninom/pgpboard-gets-twisted

In the UK at least, we take integrity of the court process rather seriously. In a case where such an unlawful leak has occurred (by the prosecution itself?!) it would be nigh on impossible to form an unbiased jury, and equally impossible to go ahead and prosecute the case. The prosecution has acted illegally to disadvantage the defendant. It's a serious flaw in Sweden's prosecution, not just a fact to argue about for no reason.

Now this brings up the "It's a matter for the courts" foghorn. Apparently that aces historical fact. What kind of logic is that? I was born. According to the foghorn, this isn't actually true unless a court finds it to be so. But lets go a little deeper. Time and time again you can mention this simple fact of a major breach of due process by the prosecution to the alleged victim's disadvantage and be told "It's a matter for the courts".

By taking this view, Assange hater isn't interested in protecting the rights of the potential rape victims. Having tarred anyone who defends Assange as a "Rape Apologist", they then go on to show they have complete disregard for the integrity of the case defending the potential rape victim's rights. You can see David Allen Green's wilful ignorance and denial here: http://storify.com/fluffkin/david-allen-green-drops-in-for-a-chat

Another way of looking at this strange attitude is that the Assange hater has a very strong interest in due process when it comes to having Julian sent to jail in Sweden, but an utter contempt for due process when it comes to some astounding flaws in the prosecution. "Does it send Julian to jail? Yes it's due process. Does it defend the alleged victim's rights? I don't care about due process". Once again. That is the attitude of a rape apologist. What the women of this world need is a strong determined interest in following due process by the prosecution to ensure that rape claim's are brought to court fairly and with good chance of success. David Allen Green and Alan Taylor have utter contempt for defending women's rights, they really are "Rape Apologists" because they don't care at all about the importance of due process in defending victim's rights.

[Later Edit: David Allen Green is a particularly strange case here. In some cases he does indeed defend rape victim's rights as in a recent case in the UK. So the case with David becomes even stranger. Why is he perfectly able to form an opinion on a case in defence of rape victims rights in any other case, but not in the case of Assange? Hmm. Double standards does not maketh the man Dave. What's going on? Social climber who doesn't want to rock the establishment boat? Someone leaning on him? Fear? Makes it worse in a way. A man who portrays himself as fair and reasonable caring more about his social status than the truth?]

The foghorn will smile smugly back and say, that no actually, by insisting the court decides they are defending the victim's rights. Sorry guys. That doesn't cut it. The facts undermining the prosecution are widely known and available. You are choosing to utterly ignore something that a sane balanced individual would be able to comment on given currently available information. If you have in interest in protecting the representation of rape victim's in court, then actually it's a pretty huge detail. The "let the court's decide" argument is simple evasion of an interest in protecting rape victim's rights in general. Why can't you discuss it, or in some cases even bring yourself to admit that it's true? On one hand you'll delight in any detail you can find that presents Julian in a bad light, so why can't you comment on problems in the prosecution? "Let the courts decide" is a smoke screen that makes you look not only stupid, but I'll say it again .. Like a Rape Apologist.

The very same anti Assange foghorn rape apologists will seize on any fact they can find at an absurdly superficial level. "Assange has had his chance of appeal and lost it". For example. Selectively ignoring the highly unusual way Assange's last appeal was overturned. It set a precedent in UK law by being refused on grounds that were not present in the appeal! That's pretty bad news for a fair legal system in the UK let alone for Assange. But the foghorn's are incapable of taking on board such detail. They in this case will stick to the "The court's decided" view and ignore the detail. Again. Any detail that contradicts their blind faith in the legal system is ignored or denied. In the case of David Allen Green, this makes him look like a joke. A self proclaimed legal expert with no interest in the legal process when it suits him?

To quote Craig Murray's recent blog post
 http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/09/why-i-am-convinced-that-anna-ardin-is-a-liar/
"Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six."

I'd recommend you go see the article that came from, and other entries in Craig Murray's site.

It's hard work keeping up the continual debate with the foghorn's but the more vile and insulting the foghorn's are, the more important it becomes to keep at it.

This is the kind of vile I'm talking about from the delightful @PGPBOARD (Alan Taylor)
@ArabellaSL @gerge42 @ingeniarius08 @PME200 @DavidAllenGreen Christine was so coked up on acid back then she probably remembers little.

I'd call that slander. It goes without comment from David Allen Green who is also fond of hurling the odd bit of abuse at Christine. A reminder to David Allen Green & Alan Taylor and your indefensible personal attacks. You're insulting the mother of a multi award winning journalist. I'm not aware that either of you have raised a child who has become as internationally significant as Julian has, or even that you have a single award between you, except perhaps for being rape apologist's? Here. I'll award you that one.

Award for Rape Apologists 2012
David Allen Green & Alan Taylor.
"For services in strongly defending a flawed potential rape prosecution at the expense of the not just the alleged victims rights, but the integrity of rape prosecutions in general."

9 Sept 2012

Redressing the balance on Assange

A common accusation against those who wish to see Julian Assange shipped to Sweden for no particular reason (but they *really* want it to happen), is that Asssange's supporters are evasive of facts. As it happens. That's what we accuse the rabid pitbull types in the anti-Assange camp of.
Here's a whole bundle of facts lifted from a comment on Naomi Wolf's piece here: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/02/eight-big-problems-with-the-case-against-assange-must-read-by-naomi-wolf/
The only attribution I have is "Jettatura". As posted in the comments.
However, here are *SOME* of the facts the anti-Assange Troll's are delighted to ignore. No really! Even this misses some points including one of J.A.'s accusers previously working for the CIA's mutual benefit! If I sent you this page link, this is a pretty darn good summary, the rabbit hole goes even deeper, and whoever you thought was telling you the turth didn't mention even one tenth of it did they?

If you want the surface skim version, skip down to around point 24, although honestly? I think it's worth being reminded of the previous 23 points so I left them all in.

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.
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.

7 Sept 2012

David Allen Green finds me on Twitter...

Recently I posted a question to my Twitter followers including the words "David Allen Green". Rather unexpectedly, the man himself found that tweet and decided to reply to me directly. It's rather difficult lifting straight from Twitter to a Blogger page, but here is the best I could do of saving a copy of the "discussion" that then took place. (Apologies for duplicates and take care to note the relative times to get the sequence right).

The point from all this is (if you bother to read it), the likes of David Allen Green have outspoken views on the fact that Assange should be prosecuted in Sweden. This, in the eyes of many makes them defenders of the alleged victims in the case. However David constantly fails to take any account of the complete failure of the Swedish police and media to follow due process in the prosecution.

In summary, he isn't arguing in the interests of providing the best case for possible prosecution and the defence of alleged sexual assault victim's rights. He is arguing solely for the prosecution of Assange, with acute interest to detail of due process on the defence side, and complete disregard for due process on the side of the prosecution.
Knowing that and reading the below, can you honestly find David Allen Green an unbiased and well informed commentator on the case against Assange? Can you honestly say he is acting in the defence of the alleged victims? I can't. I find him unable to answer simple questions, evasive and resorting to producing an argument entirely unrelated to the state of the Swedish prosecution to defend his lack of ability to explain himself.

For the sake of it, David's sole defence is that Assange's lawyer misled the court by claiming Assange made himself available for further interview before leaving Sweden. You might be stunned to find the main references to this go back to an article written by David Allen Green. Point one. It's clearly stated in other accounts that Assange did offer to attend interviews and was refused by Sweden. David describes this as a "scathing comment" on Assange's lawyer. In fact it appears no more than a simply stated finding that the magistrate in this case found the Swedish prosecution had made attempts to interview Assange. Yes they did. They also refused to accept the times that Assange could make himself available. So who's the winner on that point? The point all of David's defence of his position rests... Is tenacious at best.

 Only if you agree to write a blog on inconsistencies in and the farce that is the Swedish prosecution.
 Go and read the judgment, and we can play again.
Question for people RT'ng David Allen Green. Are you aware of the complete disregard for due process by Swedish police, media etc?
 They are probably better informed than you realise about the process....
 Sorry My Green, it seems a simple question. Is the immediate leaking of case details to the press in Sweden due process?
 if it was an abuse of process then the court in Sweden is the place to deal with it. Ditto other seeming abuses of process.
 If the case is already un-chargeable by Swedish police malpractice, that's for prior to charge decision.
 Your arguments are based on the assumption charges already exist. They don't.
 Why are you entirely unconcerned that Sweden has not yet been able to place charges? Terrible prosecution isn't it?
 You are a troll. Any answer I give will just lead to another question, and so on, and so on...
 Hey. you bothered to find a tweet that didn't even @ you. Ok I'll wait for some answers then ...
 But you have no sincere interest in the answers. You will just come up with another question It is sad and pointless.
 Ok. We've established lack of due process in Sweden. How about the poor Swedish prosecution? Is that agreable?
 How about Assange's Swedish lawyer dishonestly misleading the English court? Or the false "sex by surprise" line? Any comment?
 I'm not aware of those points, do you have a link? But still. Can we agree Swedish police & prosecution is dire?
 You not aware that Assange's Swedish lawyer misled the Magistrates Court? Ok, I see. It is in the judgment. Do you know about law?
 Again. No wasn't aware of it. Do you have a link to detail so I can check? can we agree the Swedish prosecution is dire?
 You have not read the English Magistrates' Court judgment. Run along, read it, and then pose some questions on the relevant law.
 I thought a man in your position would have an interest in due process on both sides of such a case.

 Your answer seems to be "don't care, leave it to Sweden", or "Go read up on magistrates findings on Assange's lawyer".
 My original point, and continuing point is that the prosecution case is messed up by leaks and lack of due process.
 How about addressing how badly the alleged victims are being represented? That doesn't seem to be an issue?
 Interviews are highly unusual, case details leaked, case dropped then reinstated. Isn't helping the girls much is it?
 Again. No wasn't aware of it. Do you have a link to detail so I can check? can we agree the Swedish prosecution is dire?
 Hey. you bothered to find a tweet that didn't even @ you. Ok I'll wait for some answers then ...
 If we are arguing in defence of alleged victims, isn't Sweden's case bungling and lack of charges utterly terrible?
 Why are you entirely unconcerned that Sweden has not yet been able to place charges? Terrible prosecution isn't it?
 Yes. In the UK in would be up to the CPS to decide to advance the case.
 Your arguments are based on the assumption charges already exist. They don't.
 Do you know about law? How is a court going to decide if a case can be charged or not?
 The court will only be able to decide should charges be actually in place. They still are not.
 If the case is already un-chargeable by Swedish police malpractice, that's for prior to charge decision.
 Again, a matter for the Swedish court to determine.
 Isn't it a process for the prosecution to decide prior to bringing charges that may be dismissed anyway?
 Sorry My Green, it seems a simple question. Is the immediate leaking of case details to the press in Sweden due process?
 The police leaking details to the press in Sweden is due process then is it?
 They are probably better informed than you realise about the process....