Of course this has nothing to do with a case of a couple of women who got their nose out of joint when they discovered Julian was having sex with the other, in Sweden. This was translated a few weeks after these "events" as a "non-consensual sex case" — despite the women having consented... But the Swedish laws are iffy on this subject... But The case WAS DROPPED, then reinstated by a virulent prosecutor who has NO evidence to prove anything...

Thus the real case has to do with Assange being a "threat to the secrecy" of governments' fiddles in the English/American hegemony... NOTHING ELSE. This "threat" is actually a boon for democracy everywhere... Sending the troopers in — or threatening to send the troopers in —  is TOTALLY unacceptable and shows how far the United Kingdom has fallen in the gutter. Its silly bad-will and atrocious ruthless tactics in such a case — that would not even rate in a Merde-och press rags IF IT WAS NOT ASSANGE — shows an extraordinary state of mind that borders on the hysterical and murderous... What else is new...

 

Time to pull the plug on this charade and let Julian Assange go free — or at a pinch, get the Swedish "prosecutors" do their business via conference call or come on British soil — with no threat of extradition anywhere. 

VIVA WIKILEAKS!!!!

 

Britain has warned Ecuador that it could raid its London embassy if Quito does not hand over WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been taking refuge at the mission since mid-June.

In Quito, the Ecuadorean government said that any such action would be considered a violation of its sovereignty a
"hostile and intolerable act".

"Under British law we can give them a weeks' notice before entering the premises and the embassy will no longer have diplomatic protection," a Foreign Office spokesperson said on Wednesday.

"But that decision has not yet been taken. We are not going to do this overnight. We want to stress that we want a diplomatically agreeable solution."

In Quito, the government was angered at the threat and said it would announce its decision on Assange's asylum request on Thursday at 7am local time (12:00 GMT).

"We want to be very clear, we're not a British colony. The colonial times are over," Ecuadorean Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said in an angry statement after a meeting with President Rafael Correa.

"The move announced in the official British statement, if it happens, would be interpreted by Ecuador as an unfriendly,
hostile and intolerable act, as well as an attack on our sovereignty, which would force us to respond in the strongest
diplomatic way," Patino told reporters.

Ecuador, whose government is part of a left-leaning bloc of nations in South America, called for meetings of regional
foreign ministers and the hemispheric Organization of American States to rally support in its complaint against Britain.

Tight surveillance

The Australian has been in the embassy for eight weeks since losing a legal battle to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he has been accused of rape and sexual assault by two WikiLeaks supporters.

"The UK has a legal obligation to extradite Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offences
and we remain determined to fulfill this obligation," a Foreign Office spokesperson said earlier. 

Swedish prosecutors have not yet charged Assange, but they have moved forward with their investigations and they believe they have a case to take to trial.

Assange fears Sweden could send him on to the US, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables on WikiLeaks in 2010 in a major embarrassment for Washington. 

Even if he were granted asylum, Assange has little chance of leaving the Ecuadorean embassy in London without being arrested.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/08/201281614343860431.html


The UK has no legal obligation to send Assange to Sweden on a case where there is no evidence presented... At best, the UK can organise a link or have the Swedish prosecutors come to the UK and ask questions.
Beyond this, the whole charade is a farce and SHAME ON THE UK (and Australia) to let Assange be thrown to a sham "investigation" which is a way to imprison Assange until he is extraditied from Sweden to the US, where it's most likely he will be tortured and killed...
SHAME ON YOU ALL... The medal the Brits have not won at the Lympics is that of fair play... And don't believe that the High Court judgement and the Supreme Court in pommyland on Assange was made in all fairness either...

"What I have to say will not make me very popular with prosecutors: the suspect's right is not always respected, prosecutors are not objective, prosecutors fight too hard to get a conviction somewhere down the line - I have seen too many accusations of this type to believe that this doesn't happen." Göran Lambertz, Chancellor for Justice (2006)
http://justice4assange.com/

 

 

gun and gumboot diplomacy

On 16/8/2012
05:36 – RT @theCCR: Make some noise and demand UK respects Vienna convention protecting embassies + #Ecuador sovereign right to decide on #Assan ...

05:36 – Coffee would be a godsend for those staying the night outdoors to ensure police don't violate international laws the UK signed up to.

05:30 – @daniellismore Go to the embassy if you can, order pizza for those outside holding a vigil, tweet about this outrage#ProtectAssange

05:26 – Awake? In London? Join Julian and keep him safe from William Hague who's threatening force ahead of asylum decision, only a few hours away.

04:50 – Yesterday was bad: Swedish minister's childish & prejudicial diatribe against#Assange. But today was worse: Hague's gunboat diplomacy.

Ecuador should be applauded for protecting Julian Assange from the forces of repression when no one else will, says barrister Greg Barns.

Ecuador's decision to grant Julian Assange asylum, coming from a country which resents the toxic influence of the United States in Latin America, is no surprise.

But what is utterly bewildering and scandalous is the preparedness of the UK government to arrest Assange and ensure that he is handed over to the spineless Swedes by using a law designed to stop embassies being used to promote terrorist activity.

The UK government says the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act, passed in 1987, enables its government to declare that the Ecuadorian Embassy is simply UK territory and that its police can enter and arrest Assange, who it says has breached bail. And the foreign secretary William Hague said overnight that the UK government "will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so".

Let's look at the 1987 Act first. This law was enacted in an era when the UK had difficulties with countries like Libya using embassies for terrorist activity or acts of violence. The Second Reading Speech on the Bill - which provides the explanation of what the purpose of the law is - was delivered by Baroness Young, the responsible minister on May 14, 1987.

A provision in the bill to allow the government to declare an embassy British territory on the grounds of national security was drafted because, Baroness Young said, "at present we would be unable to remove diplomatic status from premises which were being misused".

"I have in mind here evidence over a long period of time that a mission was being used, for instance, in support of terrorist activity," she added.

How could it be said that Julian Assange, facing breach of bail charges and sexual assault charges in the UK, is a matter of national security?

To send in British police to arrest Assange under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act shows simply that the UK is prepared to abuse power in the way one might expect from an authoritarian regime. 

It also creates a very dangerous precedent. If the nation that bangs on about how it is the bosom of the rule of law and fairness is able to act so capriciously to suit its friends in Stockholm, Canberra, and Washington, what is to stop other countries from running into embassies whenever someone inconvenient seeks asylum?

As for Mr Hague's statement that there is no legal basis to allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the UK, this is also highly questionable.

While there have been cases where safe passage out of a country has been refused - most famously in the case of the former Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty, who was holed up in the US embassy in Hungary for 15 years because the latter nation would not let him leave after the 1956 uprising - if there are strong humanitarian grounds for safe passage after a successful asylum claim these should trump state sovereignty.

In Mr Assange's case, it is clear that there is a real risk of torture by the Americans and the chances of a fair trial in Sweden are minimal. On these grounds, Mr Hague can find the legal basis to allow a departure.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4205364.html?WT.svl=theDrum

But that does not mean Assange should be immune from very serious allegations in Sweden. Two women have both accused Assange of rape, and there have been repeated attempts by some of his supporters to discredit them. There have been suggestions that they are part of some kind of CIA honeytrap. The campaigning journalist John Pilger has described them as "concocted charges". But Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, does not dispute the sincerity of the accusers, arguing in court: "Nothing I say should be taken as denigrating the complainant, the genuineness of their feelings of regret, to trivialise their experience or to challenge whether they felt Assange's conduct was disrespectful, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing at the boundaries of what they felt comfortable with."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-there-should-be-no-immunity-for-assange-from-these-allegations-8053869.html

Dear Owen Jones, You write whatever while understanding zip... Assange would face the prosecutors in England without second thoughts and give his version of the story against the allegations of the swedish women, whatever they are. At present THER IS NO CHARGE against him and there cannot be. But If you don't realise that once in Sweden, Assange is likely to be deported to the US, even before a court proceeding is started, you're more dumb than you look...

"Ecuador's decision to grant Assange asylum appears, on the surface, bizarre or even irrational, given the apparent costs," Max Fisher wrote on the Atlantic magazine blog yesterday. "The small-ish Latin American nation has effectively blown up relations with the much more powerful United Kingdom just over Assange... But it's possible that the diplomatic stand-off itself, and not Assange's freedom, is precisely Ecuador's goal.

"Though we can't know the Ecuadorian government's motivation for sure, engineering a high-profile and possibly protracted confrontation with a Western government would actually be quite consistent with [President Rafael] Correa's practice of using excessively confrontational foreign policy in a way that helps cement his populist credibility at home."
 
Correa is playing a canny game in exploiting Assange, whether or not he believes that there is any real threat of his being passed on from Sweden to face the wrath of the Americans with the very remote possibility of a death penalty for espionage.

There is no doubt that Assange's cramped and tedious living conditions in Knightsbridge would be paradise compared to his fate should he ever find himself under lock and key in the States.
 
Americans acknowledge that the treatment in custody of Private Bradley Manning, who fed Assange his WikiLeaks scoop from classified diplomatic traffic, not only amounted to torture, but torture designed to get him to put Assange in the frame as co-conspirator in the leaking of classified documents, rather than the receiver and publisher of the material. That would make Assange a spy.
 
The New York Times explained: "Since WikiLeaks began making public large caches of classified United States government documents, Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Mr. Assange with a crime. Among other things, they have studied several statutes that criminalise the dissemination of restricted information under certain circumstances, including the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

"But while prosecutors have used such laws to go after leakers and hackers, they have never successfully prosecuted recipients of leaked information for passing it on to others — an activity that can fall under the First Amendment's strong protections of speech and press freedoms.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/assange-extradition/48526/assange-pawn-ecuadors-power-game-uncle-sam#ixzz23ni9HF9Q

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have no doubt the United States is intent on pursuing Julian Assange, Foreign Affairs and Trade Department documents obtained by the Herald show.
This is at odds with comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Bob Carr, who has dismissed suggestions the US plans to eventually extradite Assange on charges arising from WikiLeaks obtaining leaked US military and diplomatic documents.
The Australian embassy in Washington has been tracking a US espionage investigation targeting the WikiLeaks publisher for more than 18 months.
The declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information legislation, show Australia's ambassador, the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, has made high level representations to the US government asking for advance warning of any moves to prosecute Assange.

Briefings for the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and Senator Carr also suggest the Australian government has no in-principle objection to extradition.
On Thursday, Ecuador granted Assange political asylum at its London embassy on the grounds that, if extradited to Sweden to be questioned about sexual assault allegations, he would be at risk of further extradition to the US to face espionage or conspiracy charges.
Assange sought refuge at the embassy two months ago following the dismissal of his final legal appeal against extradition to Sweden.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intends-to-chase-assange-cables-show-20120817-24e1l.html#ixzz23qHF0gno

 

Mr Hague said Mr Assange’s rights were “guaranteed” and this should be enough for Ecuador: “We are committed to work with Ecuador amicably... we cannot give safe passage to somebody in this situation.” He tried to play down Ecuadorian fears that British police plan to forcibly enter the building: “There is no threat here to storm an embassy.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/a-chance-of-freedom--if-assange-could-only-get-to-the-airport-8052991.html
"garanteed"?... Some cheese for the mouse trap...

 

Julian Assange is expected to make a public statement later on the diplomatic row that has engulfed him since being granted asylum by Ecuador.

Wikileaks says its founder will speak outside the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he has taken refuge.

He faces extradition to Sweden over sexual assault claims, which he denies.

Ecuador's president has suggested Mr Assange could co-operate with Sweden if assurances are given that there would be no extradition to a third country.

Australian Mr Assange, 41 - whose Wikileaks website has published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables embarrassing countries including the US - first walked into the embassy in Knightsbridge, asking for protection, two months ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19310335#

 

-----------------------

 

Actually, the first and major problem faced by Assange is that it's most likely he'd be found guilty of whatever sexual perversion in Sweden, whether he is guilty or is not, and jailed for 20 years — which would suit the Americans, so they would not have to deal with him...

 

Assange also called for the US to "renounced its witch hunt against WikiLeaks" and called for the release of Bradley Manning, a US soldier who is awaiting trial after being charged with aiding the enemy by passing secret files to WikiLeaks.

"If Bradley Manning did as he is accused, he is a hero and an example to all of us and one of the world's foremost political prisoners," he said.

"The US administration's war on whistle-blowers must end."

Sweden allegations

The 41-year-old Australian also highlighted the cases of Bahraini rights activist Nabeel Rajab, who was sentenced last week to three years for participating in "unauthorised" protests as well as Russian punk activist group, Pussy Riot, whose members were given a two year-sentence for on charges "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred".

Assange jumped bail and took sanctuary in the embassy in June after losing appeals in British courts against his extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual offences against two women."There is unity in the oppression," said Assange. "There must be absolute unity and determination in the response."

He fears Sweden can send him on to the US, where he believes authorities want to punish him for publishing thousands of secret US diplomatic cables, many allegedly passed on by Manning, on WikiLeaks in 2010.

The US State Department said the struggle over Assange's status was a matter between Ecuador, Britain and Sweden, and Washington had no plans to interject itself into the dispute.

Assange has not yet been formally charged with any crimes in either Sweden or the US.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/08/201281913231872972.html

 

 

John Hewson argues the Australian Government is best-placed to broker an agreement between all parties involved in the Julian Assange case.

The only sustainable way out of the Julian Assange impasse is a negotiated agreement between the various parties; the British, Ecuadorians, Swedes and, importantly, Americans.

The Australian Government is the best-placed party to broker such an agreement. Foreign Minister Bob Carr, with the full authority of the PM and the Cabinet, should lead negotiations.

The essence of the necessary agreement is also fairly straightforward. Assange should be extradited from Britain to Sweden to answer questions, with the assurance that if cleared he would then be free to travel to Australia. From Australia Assange, with the assistance of our Government, would deal with any attempts by the Americans to extradite him.

As to the politics of all this, it should be favourable to Carr and the Gillard Government to be seen to be actually standing up for the rights of an Australian citizen in trouble; not just claiming to do so.

The situation in relation to Julian Assange is in danger of becoming very silly as diplomatic arteries harden and the situation is left to drift.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4208938.html?WT.svl=theDrum

-------------------------------

As I have said before what Hewson is saying is fine... as long as Assange is not found guilty in Sweden...

It's most likely he would be found guilty despite being not — and jailed for 20 years or so.. removing him from circulation, to the delight of all protagonists involved...

 

 

Foreign ministers of South America's 12-nation union have condemned Britain's alleged threat to forcibly enter the Ecuadorean embassy in London and arrest the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

A brief statement by the ministers did not, however, endorse Ecuador's decision to grant asylum to Assange, who is wanted by Sweden for questioning about allegations of sexual misconduct. The ministers of the Unasur group issued the statement after they met in Guayaquil, Ecuador, at the host nation's request. The group's general secretary, Ali Rodriguez of Venezuela, said the meeting lasted 20 minutes.

The ministers "condemned the threat of the use of force between states" and reiterated "the right of states to concede asylum", the statement said. They also urged the parties to follow the "path of dialogue and direct negotiations" to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the impasse.

Assange has been holed up in Ecuador's embassy for two months and Britain is refusing him safe passage out of the country. The alleged British threat came in a diplomatic letter delivered to Ecuador on Wednesday, a day before it granted Assange asylum.

Britain later said it had no intention of storming the embassy, which would breach the 1961 Vienna convention, which declares foreign embassies inviolate.

Unasur's gathering came a day after the regional Alba group of leftist governments also held a meeting in Guayaquil, at which Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina all endorsed Ecuador's asylum decision about Assange.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/20/julian-assange-uk-south-america

--------------------------

One should suggest to the Swedish women involved in the Assage case they should start to "get a life"... That is go beyond the rigmarole of Swedish sexual laws and dismiss the pommy justice systems to find new occupations in their life... Unless, that's what their role is about... annoy the world... Yet they can demand a court hearing in Britain... It is POSSIBLE and the justice thus would be of equal value there, to that of Swedish soil.... The fact that this has been refused by the Swedsih authorities smell of enormousl bad will and/or conspiracy.... Though I have no idea if the women have really been "hurt" by the Assange affair, I feel the Swedes are madly shaking the sauce bottle to get the last drop out of it...

 

Swedish police travelled abroad to quiz murder suspect - so why can't they see Assange in London?

LAST UPDATED AT 11:17 ON Mon 20 Aug 2012

SPEAKING from the Ecuadorean embassy balcony yesterday, Julian Assange portrayed himself as the victim of a globe-spanning anti-democratic attack by the US. Are his fears legitimate - or just a smokescreen to evade allegations that he committed sexual misdemeanours in Sweden?
 
Support came from Assange's celebrity backers. Academic and journalist Tariq Ali told the crowd in front of the Knightsbridge embassy we should "change our gaze", reports The Guardian, adding that somebody shouted back: "So should you, mate!"
 
Fashion designer Vivienne Westwood sent a message of support, regretting that she could not be there in person. Campaigning documentary-maker John Pilger also regretted his absence but told the BBC News channel that he fully supports his fellow Australian.
 
Talking to BBC News from Washington after the 10-minute speech, US columnist Mark Weisbrot said anybody who believes Sweden really wants Assange to be extradited simply to face questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct is fooling themselves.

Assange faces no charges in Sweden relating to the two women's allegations – and the claims they have made would not stand up even in a US court, he argued.
 
He said the Swedes had turned down repeated offers to interview Assange about the allegations in London. As Weisbrot wrote in The Guardian last week, from this  "we can infer that the Swedes have no legitimate reason for the extradition".
 
Weisbrot also pointed out yesterday that Swedish police recently flew to Serbia to interview a man they want to extradite on suspicion of murder.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/world-news/assange-extradition/48564/julian-assange-balcony-speech-victim-or-manipulator#ixzz248nD9rU1

I have been a huge supporter of Pussy Riot, but late last week I came to the realisation that we, as westerners, cannot condemn Russia for persecuting the radical arts while our own government is implicit in the unlawful witch hunt for Julian Assange — not unless we analyse both with the same vigour and enthusiasm.

The mainstream media has lapped up the opportunity to paint Russia as evil authoritarians with the assertion that we are free and enlightened. I urge all the well-meaning Pussy Riot supporters that are adopting the fantastic punk feminist aesthetics of the Russian activists to be aware that there will be some that try to manipulate their protests for the purposes of pro-West dogma.

I commented in a few Australian Pussy Riot online forums over the weekend. I felt it necessary to remind people that Julian Assange is Australian, he is a radical artist of the highest order and has been left out to dry by the Australian government. There were lots of people liking and a few negative comments.

On Sunday night, Assange stood on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy and echoed my thoughts. He supported Pussy Riot and called for a united stance against global oppression. Assange said:

“There is unity in the oppression, there must be absolute unity and determination in the response.”

This is a worldwide systemic problem that is bought about by the rule of power and men. We need to stand as one social movement to bring in a new way of being. There will always great support for Pussy Riot from Assange fans. I hope there will also be some colourful balaclavas at the next action in support of Julian Assange.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/pussy-riot-and-assange/

At least we know what the Pussies have been sentenced to... a couple of years in the cooler for real bad singing in a church...

But for Assange, the dice is still loaded against him and at best, if he goes to Sweden, he would get 20 years in solitary confinement for an alleged  "offence" that would not register anywhere — not even in America... 

 

Blah blah blah...

It comes down to justice and accountability. Those are not things that governments can currently be trusted to deliver at an international level, not for women, and not for the victims of war. Julian Assange should be held to account, and the system to do so fairly while protecting the work of WikiLeaks does not exist, and anyone who believes in freedom needs to fight for both.

It is not only possible to defend both women's rights and freedom of speech. It is morally inconsistent to defend one without the other. Cultures of secrecy, covert violence and unaccountability need to be exposed. That's what WikiLeaks is supposed to be about, and it's also what feminism is about, and right now, governments are terrified of both. That, if nothing else, should tell us where the lines of power are really drawn.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-if-you-really-believe-in-wikileaks-you-must-want-assange-to-face-up-to-justice-8069906.html

---------------------

Sure...  But there is NO worries about getting Assange to answer any questions... As proven by Swedish authorities who went to interview a murder suspect in another country in Europe, they can ASK QUESTIONS  in England — or in Australia for that matter, without Assange having to go to Sweden... END OF STORY.

Assange is willing to answer questions about the "allegations of rape" in whichever manner to the Swedish prosecution AS LONG AS HE IS NOT ON SWEDISH SOIL. Why? Because he knows and any intelligent aware person would have to know that the US and Sweden have a cosy arrangement in regard to "extradition"... And Assange would be on flight to the US, pronto, in shackles, OR FOUND GUILTY VERY QUICKY  despite NO EVIDENCE of any sort, and placed in jail for 20 years... Either of these options are very plausible —  but not acceptable.

 

Britain has withdrawn a threat to enter Ecuador's embassy in London to arrest WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange who has taken refuge there, President Rafael Correa said on Saturday, taking some of the heat out of the diplomatic standoff.

"We consider this unfortunate incident over, after a grave diplomatic error by the British in which they said they would enter our embassy," Correa said in a weekly media address.

In a statement, Ecuador's government said it had received "a communication from the British Foreign Office which said that there was no threat to enter the embassy".

Ecuador was furious after the British government warned that it might try to seize Assange, who has been holed up in the building for more than two months. The the former computer hacker is trying to avoidextradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over rape and sexual assault allegations.

Ecuador, which has granted Assange asylum, demanded that Britain's threat be retracted. The latest move should improve relations between Quito and London and allow more talks on Assange's fate to take place.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/26/assange-ecuador-embassy-safe

 

Given the fact that Swedish prosecutors have repeatedly turned down opportunities to question Assange about the case -- even though they say this is their sole aim -- it is not entirely unreasonable to assume, as Assange has done, that there is some other intention behind the process that has led to the standoff we see today. If the primary concern was justice for the two women involved in the allegations, who have had the case hanging over their heads for almost two years, Assange could have been questioned by Swedish authorities at any time during that period, and the process of resolving the case, one way or another, could have moved forward. But this has not been done.

As Assange's lawyer, Per Samuelson, notes:

In August 2010, Assange was interviewed by the police for the first time, then released. A month later, the prosecutor requested an additional police interrogation be held, insisting this time that it be done with Assange behind bars. She called for Assange's arrest, issued a European arrest warrant and ordered that he be deported from the UK. Stockholm district court and the Svea court of appeal upheld her request and arrested Assange in absentia.

Neither Assange nor I can understand the motivation. Why couldn't the second police interview be conducted with Assange at liberty? Assange is not a Swedish citizen. He does not reside in Sweden. His work has worldwide impact and he must be able to travel freely to accomplish this. He would happily have presented himself for interrogation and, had the case gone to trial, willingly returned to Sweden to face charges. All this could have been done while he remained at liberty. Had Sweden handled the case in this way, the issue would have been resolved a long time ago.

Instead, Sweden insists on Assange's forcible removal to Sweden. Once there, he will immediately be seized by police and put in jail. He will be taken to the detention hearing in handcuffs, and will almost certainly be detained. He will remain in custody for the duration of the proceedings. This is unnecessary. The prosecutor is at liberty to withdraw the arrest warrant and lift the detention order, and a hearing in Sweden could be arranged very quickly. The prosecutor could also arrange a hearing in the UK or at the Swedish embassy in London.

Again, it seems evident that the Swedish authorities did not want to pursue any of these options, but have instead sought relentlessly to put Assange in a Swedish jail and keep him there. Whatever their motives for this heavy-handed course of action, concern for victims of sexual assault does not seem to be among them.

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2274-imperial-affront-ecuador-will-face-us-wrath-for-asylum-decision.html

 

But what about Sweden's role in this sordid affair? Most obviously, Sweden has had the opportunity to interview Assange in the UK, but has repeatedly refused to do so. The Swedish government also refused Ecuador's offer to interview Assange at its London embassy. As in the past, no justification was offered. 

The Swedish government also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the US. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the UK, for that matter) to arrange. Once again, the Swedish government offered no reason for its refusal to consider this obvious solution to the diplomatic impasse. 

Contrary to much press commentary, there is no need for conspiracy theories here to draw the logical conclusion. If the Swedish government really wanted to pursue the investigation of sexual offence allegations against Assange, they could do so. But instead, they are deliberately abandoning the criminal investigation - which is getting older and more difficult to pursue - for other reasons. 

This includes the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Claes Borgstrom, who was reportedly instrumental in getting the third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) to go after Assange. (The previous prosecutor assigned to the case had dropped it because the evidence is so weak). Borgstrom has been in the media defending the United States and its allies, rather than his clients, asserting that Assange "must know" that the case "has nothing to do with WikiLeaks". This also casts serious doubt on all the people who have opposed Assange's asylum on the grounds that they care about the two women who have accused Assange. (It is worth noting that neither of the two women accused Assange of rape, although that is one of the allegations that has been spread throughout the media and the world). Anyone who was really concerned about pursuing this case would aim their fire at the Swedish prosecutor, and at least ask her why she has abandoned the investigation. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129674125619411.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will make a speech to the United Nations today on the eve of the 100th day since he sought political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Mr Assange will speak to a UN meeting in New York over a satellite link.

He arrived at the embassy on June 19 as part of his bid to avoid extradition to Sweden where he faces sex allegations.

Mr Assange fears he will be extradited to the United States over the activities of the whistle-blowing website if he travels to Sweden.

He was granted political asylum by the government of Ecuador last month and has remained in the embassy ever since.

Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Pantino will address the United Nations today on the subject of political asylum, referring specifically to the Assange case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-to-address-united-nations-8179639.html

Gaga, who popped in for dinner after a perfume launch across the road from the embassy at high-end retailer Harrods, has attracted her own unsavoury publicity in recent days after vomiting on stage during a live show in Spain.
The 26-year-old, known for her outlandish outfits and controversial song lyrics, entered the embassy about 7pm (local time) on Monday and did not emerge until after midnight.
She later posted a photo of herself with Assange on social networking sites.
While it may seem like an odd pairing, Gaga and Assange do have a connection.
According to US news website The Atlantic, Bradley Manning used Gaga's music to help him download hundreds of thousands of classified documents from US Army servers, before passing them to WikiLeaks.
One of Manning's chat logs read:
"I would come in with music on a CD-RW labelled with something like Lady Gaga erase the music then write a compressed split file. No one suspected a thing ... [I] listened and lip-synched to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."
There has been no word on what was on the dinner or discussion menu for Assange and Gaga
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity/date-night-gaga-and-assange-dine-in-london-20121010-27c32.html#ixzz28t30UXeq

 

Military commanders at the marine base in Quantico in Virginia kept Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks suspect, on extreme suicide-prevention measures because he engaged in "erratic dancing" and played peek-a-boo, the soldier's court martial has been told. The measures were likened by the UN to torture.

Daniel Choike, who was commander of the Quantico marine base between 29 July 2010 and 20 April 2011, when Manning was held there, said he had agreed to keep the soldier on a restrictive "prevention of injury" (PoI) order because of his "erratic behaviour, poor judgment in the past and poor family relationships".

The PoI order involved Manning being held in his cell for 23 hours a day in solitary confinement, having all his possessions withheld, being checked every five minutes, held overnight with the light on, and at times stripped of all his clothes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/bradley-manning-treatment-custody-wikileaks

--------------------

It is quite extraordinary that "military commanders" are not happy about Bradley manning being "playful"... 

Humans are a useless funny lot. 

We spend more time entertaining ourselves than doing useful survival, such as fossicking for food and building shelters. When food and shelter is supplied or acquired, we've got even more time in our hands to do whatever... Doing nothing at all can be an option, but soon the mind sinks into depression through lack of activity. 

In most situation we would indulge in "entertainment" — either we provide it our self or we watch others "entertaining us"... It's part of the human condition: TV, theatre, movies, music, poetry, books, relationships... 

In prison, routine can become part of the entertaining occupation, but in the case of isolation, subjects need to do something else than washing their teeth every five minutes. Then we'd label them "compulsive" when we are the conpulsive jailers...

It is cruel not to let people have access to "entertainment" or deprive them from entertaining themselves... or stop them having access to education, including scientific education unless this is judged too "dangerous'... since knowledge can be a weapon...

Meanwhile, as I attack the mass media from providing us mostly with 'entertainment", I refer here to the fact, the media organisations provide less than basic information wrapped in ringing bells, whistles and useless comments... There is time for this, but not all the majority of the time.

Meanwhile Julian Assange warns us about the dangers of the internet... Nothing new,,, It's only a medium that can be used by our masters to spy on us... Thus the need for anonymity and bullshit amongst the roses?....

 

from Elizabeth Farrelly
Petersson was right about one thing. I know little of the Swedish legal system. (I do know educated Swedish-Australians, like retired medic Martin Gerin, who reinforce my impression that it is convoluted - some say ''mediaeval'' - and, with its politically appointed lay judges, heavily politicised. They also say Petersson is an embarrassment who should be sent home.)
Assange has been effectively detained for two years without charge. His only sin was having unprotected sex (which, even my 13-year old knows, would render him as vulnerable to STDs as the women).
He has won a Walkley, the Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal, and the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. He came second in the Huffington Post's next head of the BBC poll (after Jeremy Paxman) and is regarded by many as the century's greatest journalist, with supporters including Mary Kostakidis, Julian Burnside, Geoffrey Robertson and Jemima Khan.
But even if Assange were, as some say, a zionist, cultist, narcissist, misogynist or Marxist - even all of these - he'd still be entitled to a fair and open trial.There are genuine doubts as to whether this can happen in Sweden, and worse about the US trial. (With the imminent and sinister Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement, its contents so secret they can't be disclosed for four years, we'll never exert pressure on the US.)
Australia must therefore demand a Swedish guarantee that Assange will not be sent to America. Otherwise he, and our own rights to truth, may end up naked in a cell like poor, sweet Bradley Manning.
The Assange vigil will be held tonight at 7pm on the Parliament House lawns, Canberra.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/ambassadors-rage-doesnt-dispel-facts-20121128-2ae99.html#ixzz2DYAf1mb7

From John Pilger

Last December I stood with supporters of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange outside the Ecuadorean embassy. Young and old, they were there to demonstrate their solidarity with someone whose guts they admired. They were in no doubt about Assange's achievements and the dangers he faced. Absent entirely were the lies, spite, jealousy, opportunism and pathetic animus of those dominating coverage of Assange.

Like Jemima Khan, the film director Ken Loach lost bail money in standing up for Assange. "The US is out to crush someone who has revealed its dirty secrets," Loach wrote. "Extradition via Sweden is more than likely … is it difficult to choose whom to support?"

No, it is not difficult.

In the New Statesman last week, Jemima Khan ended her support for an epic struggle for justice, truth and freedom with a j'accuse that the Guardian also published. To Khan, the Loaches and countless others have all been duped. We are all "blinkered". We are all mindlessly "devoted". We are all cultists. Khan describes Assange as "an Australian L Ron Hubbard". She must have known that such specious abuse would make a snappy headline – as it did across the press in Australia.

One of Khan's complaints is that Assange refused to appear in a film about WikiLeaks by the American director Alex Gibney, which she "executive-produced". Assange knew that a film featuring axe grinders and turncoats would be neither "nuanced" nor "represent the truth", as Khan wrote, and that its very title – WikiLeaks, We Steal Secrets – was a gift to the fabricators of a bogus criminal indictment that could doom him to one of America's hellholes.

The sum of Khan's attack is that Ecuador granted Assange asylum without evidence. The evidence is voluminous. Assange has been declared an official "enemy" of a torturing, assassinating, rapacious state. This is clear in official files obtained under freedom of information, which betray Washington's "unprecedented" pursuit of him, together with the Australian government's abandonment of its citizen: a legal basis for granting asylum.

What is striking about Assange's haters is that they exhibit the very symptoms of arrested development they now attribute to a man whose resilience and humour under extreme pressure are evident to those he trusts. Khan refers to a "long list" of Assange's "alienated and disaffected allies". Almost none was ever an ally. Khan makes no mention of the damning, irrefutable evidence that Gareth Peirce, Britain's leading human rights lawyer, presented to the Australian government, warning that the US deliberately "synchronised" its extradition demands with pending cases, and that Assange faced a shocking miscarriage of justice and danger.

read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/14/assange-hate-is-real-cult

THE cost of keeping police round the clock outside the Ecuadoran embassy in London in case Julian Assange emerges has hit $4.37 million, British police said.

Officers have been stationed outside ever since the Australian-born WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange jumped bail and fled there on June 19 after losing his battle in the British courts against extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over allegations of rape and sexual assault. Ecuador has granted Julian Assange political asylum.

Scotland Yard police headquarters estimated the total cost to the end of January in salary and for the officers stationed on duty and the rest in overtime payments.

Julian Assange's Australian electoral roll application for Senate bidl

The embassy is a flat in a mansion block in west London's plush Knightsbridge district. It is across the street from the back of Harrods department store.

http://www.news.com.au/world/million-cost-to-police-over-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-at-ecuadoran-embassy/story-fndir2ev-1226579327514

--------------------------------

As well, one has to consider that Jemina Khan is financing in part an "unauthorised" movie on the life of Julian... Do I smell a way to recoup the 30,000 quids she put up against julian's bail?... Who knows... One could suspect there would be a bit of self-interest and self-promotion in this, is there?...

The top Swedish prosecutor pursuing sexual assault charges against Julian Assange has abruptly left the case and one of Mr Assange's accusers has sacked her lawyer.

The turmoil in the Swedish Prosecution Authority's effort to extradite Mr Assange comes as another leading Swedish judge prepares to deliver an unprecedented public lecture in Australia next week on the WikiLeaks publisher's case.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority want to extradite Mr Assange to have him questioned in Stockholm in relation to sexual assault allegations by two women.

Fairfax Media has obtained Swedish court documents that reveal high-profile Swedish prosecutor Marianne Nye has unexpectedly left the handling Mr Assange's case, effective from Wednesday, and has been replaced by a more junior prosecutor, Ingrid Isgren. The reasons for the change have not yet been disclosed.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-prosecutor-quits-while-accuser-sacks-lawyer-20130328-2gwjk.html#ixzz2Ooewa6q0

Lawyers for Julian Assange have called for controversial telephone evidence to be released as they made a fresh attempt to break the deadlock in the rape case brought four years ago against the WikiLeaksfounder.

Filing a challenge to the prosecution in the Swedish courts, lawyers for Assange – who last week marked the second anniversary of his asylum in Ecuador's embassy in London – said a recent revision to Swedish law requires evidence held by the prosecution to be made available to the defence.

Text messages sent by the two women plaintiffs were seen by defence lawyers in 2010, but copies of the messages were not issued to them.Assange has claimed that text messages sent by one of his accusers show that she was ambiguous about his arrest and even opposed to it.

"The messages strongly suggest that there is no basis for the arrest and they are thus vital so that he [Assange] can effectively tackle the arrest warrant," the lawyers say in documents filed with Stockholm district court on Tuesday.

The court said the request would be assessed within a few days by judge Bertil Sundin, who declined to comment.

The Swedish detention order that Assange is challenging requires him to be extradited to Sweden to face questioning over the alleged rape and sexual assault of two women there in August 2010.

Assange claims cooperation with the British and Swedish authorities would expose him to an ongoing criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice into WikiLeaks activity.

Sweden's code of judicial procedure was updated on 1 June to conform with EU law, and now includes a provision that anyone arrested or detained has the right to be made aware of "facts forming the basis for the decision to arrest".

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jun/24/julian-assange-legal-bid-sweden-rape-case

 

See toon at top...

The Australian WikiLeaks founder will reportedly model for Vivienne Westwood’s son, Ben Westwood, at a fashion show staged at the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he has been seeking refuge for the past two years.

He is avoiding extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning over claims of sex offences.

“Julian’s been in the embassy for two years and it’s important that he doesn’t slip into obscurity,” said Ben Westwood.

“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.

read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-to-make-modelling-debut-at-london-fashion-week-as-catwalk-show-comes-to-ecuadorian-embassy-9564155.html

The costly, elongated police siege around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state, writes John Pilger.

THE SIEGE OF KNIGHTSBRIDGE IS A FARCE.

For two years, an exaggerated, costly police presence around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state.

Their quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee from gross injustice whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His true crime is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange must end.

Even the British Government clearly believes it must end.

On 28 October, the deputy foreign minister, Hugo Swire, told Parliament he would “actively welcome” the Swedish prosecutor in London and

“… we would do absolutely everything to facilitate that.”

The tone was impatient. 

The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has refused to come to London to question Assange about allegations of sexual misconduct in Stockholm in 2010 — even though Swedish law allows for it and the procedure is routine for Sweden and the UK.

The documentary evidence of a threat to Assange’s life and freedom from the United States – should he leave the embassy – is overwhelming.

On May 14 this year, U.S. court files revealed that a ‘multi-subject investigation’ against Assange was ‘active and ongoing’.

Ny has never properly explained why she will not come to London, just as the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the U.S. under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In December 2010, the Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the U.S. before the European Arrest Warrant was issued.

Perhaps an explanation is that, contrary to its reputation as a liberal bastion, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA “renditions” — including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and WikiLeaks cables.

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/the-siege-and-smearing-of-julian-assange,7105

A Swedish prosecutor has cancelled an appointment to interview Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, according to the Wikileaks founder, who has been living in the building for nearly three years to avoid extradition.

Assange said Marianne Ny had led his lawyers to believe that an appointment to take a statement from him would take place on Wednesday and described the cancellation as reckless.

But Ny said the meeting would have to be called off because she had not received official permission from Ecuador to enter its London embassy.

“Some formal approval has not come, and it is unclear when the matter can be resolved,” the prosecutor Marianne Ny wrote to Assange’s lawyers at 3.47pm on Wednesday, in email correspondence seen by the Guardian. “It is therefore no longer necessary to carry out investigative measures this week.”

Swedish prosecutors have been trying since 2010 to question Assange about allegations of rape and sexual molestation, although he has never been charged. He entered the embassy three years ago on Friday and has remained there to avoid a perceived threat of being sent on from Sweden to the US for publishing military secrets.

Lawyers for Assange claimed a victory in March after Ny bowed to pressure from the courts and agreed to break the deadlock in the case by interviewing him in London. Ny’s formal request to interrogate him in the Ecuadorian embassy was the first sign of movement in a case that has been frozen since August 2012.

Assange said on Wednesday: “This afternoon, the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny cancelled a prospective appointment to take my statement today. We proposed the dates and Ny accepted them.

“Prosecutor Ny led my lawyers to believe that the appointment was proceeding. My lawyers had booked tickets and I have been put to considerable expense. Last year, the Swedish court of appeal found that prosecutor Ny had breached her duty because she had refused to take my statement for four and a half years.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/17/julian-assange-says-swedish-prosecutor-is-reckless-for-scrapping-interview

NOT RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL PERMISSION? Did she ask for one? What a lot of codswallop...

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied filing a request for asylum in France after revealing the existence of a child he has not seen for five years.

His legal defence team took issue on Friday with a statement from the Elysee Palace that an asylum request from the Australian had been declined.

Defence team director Baltasar Garzon said in a statement an open letter written by Assange to the French president, Francois Hollande, had only expressed his willingness “to be hosted in France if and only if an initiative was taken by the competent authorities”.

Earlier Hollande’s office said in a statement it could not “act on the request”, adding Assange was not in immediate danger and there was a European arrest warrant out on him.

The Australian, who turned 44 on Friday, has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since June 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces allegations by two women of rape, sexual molestation and illegal coercion.

He says he fears if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited to the US and charged over WikiLeaks’ release of classified documents.

In his open letter published in Le Monde newspaper on Friday, Assange described himself as a “journalist pursued and threatened with death by the United States’ authorities as a result of my professional activities”.

He wrote that “only France now has the ability to offer me the necessary protection against, and exclusively against, the political persecution that I am currently the object of”.

Such an offer of protection would be a “humanitarian and symbolic gesture” and send a message of encouragement “to journalists and whistleblowers around the world”.

Assange said in his letter he had not seen his youngest child or the child’s mother, who are both French, for five years.

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/04/julian-assange-denies-making-asylum-request-that-was-refused-by-france

Swedish prosecutors will drop their investigation into sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange on Thursday because of the statutes of limitation, the BBC has learned.

The Wikileaks founder still faces the more serious allegation of rape.

But prosecutors have run out of time to investigate Mr Assange for sexual assault because they have not succeeded in questioning him.

He denies all allegations and has said they are part of a smear campaign.

The Australian journalist and activist sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden.

Time limit

Under Swedish law, charges cannot be laid without interviewing the suspect.

Prosecutors had until 13 August to question Mr Assange about one accusation of sexual molestation and one of unlawful coercion, while the time limit on a further allegation of sexual molestation runs out on 18 August.

The more serious allegation of rape is not due to expire until 2020.

An official announcement from the prosecutor's office is expected on Thursday morning.

Supporters of Mr Assange say there is a political campaign against him

Mr Assange has always denied all the accusations and says he fled into the Ecuadorian embassy because he fears being extradited from Sweden to the US and put on trial for releasing secret American documents.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33894757

 

Julian Assange has said he advised the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden against seeking asylum in Latin America because he could have been kidnapped and possibly killed there.

The WikiLeaks editor-in-chief said he told Snowden to ignore concerns about the “negative PR consequences” of sheltering in Russia because it was one of the few places in the world where the CIA’s influence did not reach.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Times, Assange also said he feared he would be assassinated if he was ever able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought asylum in 2012 to avoid extradition.

He accused US officials of breaking the law in their pursuit of him and his whistleblowing organisation, and in subjecting his connections to a campaign of harassment.

WikiLeaks was intimately involved in the operation to help Snowden evade the US authorities in 2013 after he leaked his cache of intelligence documents to Glenn Greenwald, then a journalist with the Guardian.

Assange sent one of his most senior staff members, Sarah Harrison, to be at Snowden’s side in Hong Kong, and helped to engineer his escape to Russia – despite his discomfort with the idea of fleeing to one of the US’s most powerful enemies.

“Snowden was well aware of the spin that would be put on it if he took asylum in Russia,” Assange told the Times.

“He preferred Latin America, but my advice was that he should take asylum in Russia despite the negative PR consequences, because my assessment is that he had a significant risk he could be kidnapped from Latin America on CIA orders. Kidnapped or possibly killed.”

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/29/julian-assange-told-edward-snowdon-not-seek-asylum-in-latin-america

 

See toon at top... Read from top.

 

 

In a statement issued by WikiLeaks on Twitter, Assange said: “Should the UN announce tomorrow that I have lost my case against the United Kingdom and Sweden, I shall exit the embassy at noon on Friday to accept arrest by British police as there is no meaningful prospect of further appeal.

“However, should I prevail and the state parties be found to have acted unlawfully, I expect the immediate return of my passport and the termination of further attempts to arrest me.”

The WikiLeaks founder had raised repeated concerns about Swedish demands that he be questioned in person over the allegations, due to fears he may be extradited to the United States. A grand jury investigation is still believed to be underway in the US following WikiLeaks’ publication of the Afghan war diary and United States diplomatic cables.

Swedish authorities have come under scrutiny for their approach to questioning him. It was only in January 2016 that a deal was finally struck by prosecutors with Ecuadorian officials to allow Assange to be questioned at the embassy in London.

Swedish authorities said in August 2015 they were ceasing their inquiries into two counts of alleged sexual molestation and one count of alleged unlawful coercion, with the offences reaching their statute of limitations. A further allegation of rape is still the subject of inquiries.

Assange first entered the Ecuadorian embassy in 2012 after mounting a series of legal challenges in the UK to an extradition warrant from Sweden.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation

 

He should walk free but if I was him, I'd be worried about having "protection". A couple of armed guards would not go astray...

 

A UN panel will conclude Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is being "arbitrarily detained" in the UK, the Swedish foreign ministry has said.

Mr Assange, 44, claimed asylum in London's Ecuadorean embassy in 2012. He wants to avoid extradition to Sweden over a rape claim, which he denies.

The Met Police says Mr Assange will be arrested if he leaves the embassy.

Swedish prosecutors said the UN panel's decision would have "no formal impact" on its ongoing investigation.

Mr Assange earlier said his passport should be returned and his arrest warrant dropped if the UN panel ruled in his favour....

 

 

...

 

Per Samuelsson, Mr Assange's lawyer, said Swedish authorities would be "morally" wrong to continue the investigation if the UN panel found in his favour.

"The ball is in Sweden's yard, in the prosecutor's yard. She is not formally bound by the decision by the UN, but morally it is very difficult to go against it."

The journalist John Pilger, who is a friend of Mr Assange, said "the ball is now at the feet of the British government", whose international legal "obligations" were represented by the UN panel.

"They did something in terms of supporting the tribunal in all the other celebrated cases, and Assange now joins them because the UN jurists have clearly found this is a case of arbitrary detention," he said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35490910

Ecuador decided to allow Sweden to question Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Ecuador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs says it will allow Sweden to question WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

"According to the terms of the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between Ecuador and Sweden, the Attorney General's Office notified the Prosecutor of the Kingdom of Sweden of its willingness to process the interrogation of Julian Assange at the Embassy of Ecuador in London," a statement on the ministry’s website says.

The WikiLeaks founder has been residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since 2012 out of fear of being extradited to Sweden where he has been accused of sexual assault, and from there to the United States where he could face espionage charges for publishing secret documents through his website.

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160811/1044151525/ecuador-assange-sweden-embassy.html

 

Julian Assange has been vindicated because the Swedish case against him was corrupt.

The prosecutor, Marianne Ny, obstructed justice and should be prosecuted. Her obsession with Assange not only embarrassed her colleagues and the judiciary but exposed the Swedish state’s collusion with the United States in its crimes of war and “rendition”.  

Had Assange not sought refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, he would have been on his way to the kind of American torture pit Chelsea Manning had to endure.

This prospect was obscured by the grim farce played out in Sweden. “It’s a laughing stock,” said James Catlin, one of Assange’s Australian lawyers. “It is as if they make it up as they go along."

It may have seemed that way, but there was always serious purpose. In 2008, a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch" foretold a detailed plan to discredit WikiLeaks and smear Assange personally.

The 'mission' was to destroy the 'trust' that was WikiLeaks' 'centre of gravity'. This would be achieved with threats of 'exposure [and] criminal prosecution'. Silencing and criminalising such an unpredictable source of truth-telling was the aim.

Perhaps this was understandable. WikiLeaks has exposed the way America dominates much of human affairs, including its epic crimes, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale, often homicidal killing of civilians and the contempt for sovereignty and international law.

These disclosures are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional law, lauded whistleblowers as

"... part of a healthy democracy [and they] must be protected from reprisal."

In 2012, the Obama campaign boasted on its website that Obama had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other U.S. presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had publicly pronounced her guilty.

Few serious observers doubt that, should the U.S. get its hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, he is on a "manhunt target list". Threats of his kidnapping and assassination became almost political and media currency in the U.S. following then Vice-President Joe Biden's preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a "cyber-terrorist".

Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed her own expedient solution:

“Can’t we just drone this guy.”  

Hillary Clinton on Assange "Can't we just drone this guy" -- reporthttps://t.co/S7tPrl2QCZ pic.twitter.com/qy2EQBa48y

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 3, 2016

According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is'unprecedented in scale and nature'. In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand juryhas sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy.

 The First Amendment protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers, whether it is the editor of the New York Times or the editor of WikiLeaks. The very notion of free speech is described as America’s “founding virtue”, or, as Thomas Jefferson called it, “our currency”.

Faced with this hurdle, the U.S. Justice Department has contrived charges of "espionage", "conspiracy to commit espionage", "conversion" (theft of government property), "computer fraud and abuse" (computer hacking) and general "conspiracy". The favoured Espionage Act, which was meant to deter pacifists and conscientious objectors during World War One, has provisions for life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the U.S. declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security". This is a kangaroo court.

For Assange, his trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, when the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation", they coordinated it, unlawfully, with the Stockholm tabloids. The front pages said Assange had been accused of the "rape of two women". The word “rape” can have a very different legal meaning in Sweden than in Britain; a pernicious false reality became the news that went round the world.

Less than 24 hours later, the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne, took over the investigation. She wasted no time in cancelling the arrest warrant, saying: "I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape." Four days later, she dismissed the rape investigation altogether, saying: "There is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever."

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a highly contentious figure in the Social Democratic Party, then standing as a candidate in Sweden's imminent general election. Within days of the chief prosecutor's dismissal of the case, Borgstrom, a lawyer, announced to the media that he was representing the two women and had sought a different prosecutor in Gothenberg. This was Marianne Ny, whom Borgstrom knew well, personally and politically.

On 30 August, Assange attended a police station in Stockholm voluntarily and answered the questions put to him. He understood that was the end of the matter. Two days later, Ny announced she was re-opening the case.

At a press conference, Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed. The reporter cited one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied: "Ah, but she is not a lawyer."

Sweden drops ‘rape’ case, but Brits still want to arrest himhttps://t.co/3bQnUonHTw So UK's taken over US lapdog duties from Sweden #ukpoli

— Ming The Merciless (@MGliksmanMDPhD) May 19, 2017

On the day that Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service – which has the acronym MUST – publicly denouncedWikiLeaks in an article entitled 'WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers [under US command in Afghanistan]'.  

Both the Swedish prime minister and foreign minister attacked Assange, who had been charged with no crime. Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its U.S. counterparts that U.S.-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the renewed “rape investigation” to take its course. The Guardian was then on the brink of publishing the Iraq War Logs, based on WikiLeaks' disclosures, which Assange was to oversee in London.

Finally, he was allowed him to leave. As soon as he had left, Marianne Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals. 

Assange attended a police station in London, was duly arrested and spent ten days in Wandsworth Prison, in solitary confinement. Released on £340,000 bail, he was electronically tagged, required to report to police daily and placed under virtual house arrest while his case began its long journey to the Supreme Court.

He still had not been charged with any offence. His lawyers repeated his offer to be questioned in London, by video or personally, pointing out that Marianne Ny had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used by the Swedish and other European authorities for that purpose. She refused.

For almost seven years, while Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations, Ny refused to question Assange and so advance her case.

Writing in the Swedish press, a former Swedish prosecutor, Rolf Hillegren,accused Ny of losing all impartiality. He described her personal investment in the case as "abnormal" and demanded she be replaced.

Assange asked the Swedish authorities for a guarantee that he would not be  “rendered” to the U.S. if he was extradited to Sweden. This was refused. In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments haddiscussed his onward extradition to the United States.

Contrary to its reputation as a bastion of liberal enlightenment, Sweden has drawn so close to Washington that it has allowed secret CIA "renditions" — including the illegal deportation of refugees. The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UNCommittee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation and in WikiLeaks cables.

'Documents released by WikiLeaks since Assange moved to England', wrote Al Burke, editor of the online Nordic News Network, an authority on the multiple twists and dangers that faced Assange,

'... clearly indicate that Sweden has consistently submitted to pressure from the United States in matters relating to civil rights. There is every reason for concern that if Assange were to be taken into custody by Swedish authorities, he could be turned over to the United States without due consideration of his legal rights.'

The war on Assange now intensified. Marianne Ny refused to allow his Swedish lawyers, and the Swedish courts, access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police had extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the “rape” allegations.

Ny said she was not legally required to reveal this critical evidence until a formal charge was laid and she had questioned him. Then, why wouldn’t she question him? Catch-22.

When she announced last week that she was dropping the Assange case, she made no mention of the evidence that would destroy it. One of the SMS messages makes clear that one of the women did not want any charges brought against Assange, 'but the police were keen on getting a hold on him'. She was'shocked' when they arrested him because she only 'wanted him to take [an HIV]test'. She 'did not want to accuse JA of anything' and 'it was the police who made up the charges'. In a witness statement, she is quoted as saying that she had been 'railroaded by police and others around her'.

Neither woman claimed she had been raped. Indeed, both denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, 'I have not been raped.'  The women were manipulated by police — whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they, too, are the victims of this sinister saga.

Media Reminder: No woman accused #Assange of "rape". The Swedish state did. The women expressly denied it. http://t.co/FjI49oc0Eg

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) July 16, 2014

Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape wrote:

'The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction... The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will. [Assange] has made it clear he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step in their investigation? What are they afraid of?'

Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the U.S., or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety.

Supported by most of Latin America, the Government of tiny Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the U.S.; that this threat violated his basic human rights; and that his own government in Australia had abandoned him and colluded with Washington.

The Labor Government of the then Prime Minister Julia Gillard had even threatened to take away his Australian passport — until it was pointed out to her that this would be unlawful.

 

The renowned human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who represents Assange in London, wrote to the then Australian foreign minister, Kevin Rudd:

'Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions... it is very hard to attempt to preserve for him any presumption of innocence. Mr. Assange has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords, of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country, and that his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged.'

It was not until she contacted the Australian High Commission in London that Peirce received a response, which answered none of the pressing points she raised. In a meeting I attended with her, the Australian Consul-General, Ken Pascoe, made the astonishing claim that he knew "only what I read in the newspapers" about the details of the case.

In 2011, in Sydney, I spent several hours with a conservative member of Australia’s Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull.  We discussed the threats to Assange and their wider implications for freedom of speech and justice, and why Australia was obliged to stand by him. Turnbull then had a reputation as a free speech advocate. He is now the Prime Minister of Australia.

I gave him Gareth Peirce’s letter about the threat to Assange’s rights and life. He said the situation was clearly appalling and promised to take it up with the Gillard Government. Only his silence followed.

Julian Assange's mother calls on Malcolm Turnbull to help WikiLeaks founder after rape investigation droppedhttps://t.co/GqjKpbitoB

— TOM IN OZ (@SirThomasWynne) May 20, 2017

For almost seven years, this epic miscarriage of justice has been drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. There are few precedents. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks have been aimed at a man not charged with any crime yet subjected to treatment not even meted out to a defendant facing extradition on a charge of murdering his wife. That the U.S. threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists and to the principle of free speech was lost in the sordid and the ambitious. I would call it anti-journalism.

Books were published, movie deals struck and media careers launched or kick-started on the back of WikiLeaks, and an assumption that attacking Assange was fair game and he was too poor to sue. People have made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks has struggled to survive.

The previous editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaksdisclosures, which his newspaper published, 'one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years'. Yet no attempt was made to protect the Guardian’sprovider and source. Instead, the “scoop” became part of a marketing plan to raise the newspaper's cover price.

With not a penny going to Assange or to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as a "damaged personality" and "callous". They also revealed the secret password he had given the paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the US embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police outside, gloated on his blog that 'Scotland Yard may get the last laugh'.

Journalism students might well study this period to understand the most ubiquitous source of “fake news” — as from within a media self-ordained with a false respectability and as an extension of the authority and power it courts and protects. 

The presumption of innocence was not a consideration in Kirsty Wark’s memorable live-on-air interrogation in 2010. “Why don’t you just apologise to the women?” she demanded of Assange, followed by: “Do we have your word of honour that you won’t abscond?”

On the BBC’s Today programme, John Humphrys bellowed: “Are you a sexual predator?” Assange replied that the suggestion was ridiculous, to which Humphrys demanded to know how many women he had slept with.

“Would even Fox News have descended to that level?” wondered the American historian William Blum.

“I wish Assange had been raised in the streets of Brooklyn, as I was. He then would have known precisely how to reply to such a question: ‘You mean including your mother?’”

Last week, on BBC World News, on the day Sweden announced it was dropping the case, I was interviewed by Greta Guru-Murthy, who seemed to have little knowledge of the Assange case. She persisted in referring to the “charges”against him. She accused him of putting Trump in the White House; and she drew my attention to the “fact” that “leaders around the world” had condemned him. Among these “leaders” she included Trump’s CIA director. I asked her: “Are you a journalist?”.

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act in 2014.

"His case has been won lock, stock and barrel," Gareth Peirce told me, "these changes in the law mean that the UK now recognises as correct everything that was argued in his case. Yet he does not benefit." In other words, he would have won his case in the British courts and would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador's decision to protect Assange in 2012 was immensely brave. Even though the granting of asylum is a humanitarian act and the power to do so is enjoyed by all states under international law, both Sweden and the United Kingdom refused to recognise the legitimacy of Ecuador's decision.

Ecuador's embassy in London was placed under police siege and its government abused. When William Hague's Foreign Office threatened to violatethe Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, warning that it would remove the diplomatic inviolability of the embassy and send the police in to get Assange, outrage across the world forced the government to back down.

During one night, police appeared at the windows of the embassy in an obvious attempt to intimidate Assange and his protectors.

Since then, Assange has been confined to a small room without sunlight. He has been ill from time to time and refused safe passage to the diagnostic facilities of hospital. Yet, his resilience and dark humour remain quite remarkable in the circumstances. When asked how he put up with the confinement, he replied:“Sure beats a supermax.”

In case you missed: John Pilger talks to #JulianAssange, the founder and editor of #WikiLeaks: https://t.co/2M0rd8zd0M @johnpilger #UK #USpic.twitter.com/J9SmLjlELn

— Fair Observer (@myfairobserver) November 27, 2016

It is not over, but it is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention – the tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations – last year ruled that Assange had been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden. This is international law at its apex.

Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. In previous cases ruled upon by the Working Group – Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Burma, imprisoned opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia, detained Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian in Iran – both Britain and Sweden gave full support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange's persecution endures in the heart of London.

The Metropolitan Police say they still intend to arrest Assange for bail infringement should he leave the embassy. What then? A few months in prison while the U.S. delivers its extradition request to the British courts?

If the British Government allows this to happen it will, in the eyes of the world, be shamed comprehensively and historically as an accessory to the crime of a war waged by rampant power against justice and freedom — and all of us.

You can read more about the films and journalism of John Pilgerat johnpilger.com or follow him on Twitter @johnpilger.

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/getting-assange-the-untold-story,10321

 

 

 

 

Julian Assange’s legal bid to have his outstanding UK arrest warrant dropped reminds us that daring to speak truth to power comes at a price.

If Julian Assange had been confined to a foreign embassy in Moscow or Beijing for five years, on the same grounds on which he has been confined to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, his plight would have been a cause celebre, sparking calls for boycotts, sanctions, and action at the UN on the part of free speech and prisoner of conscience liberals in the West who are never done excoriating Russia and China.

As it is the UN has already intervened in the matter of the plight of the Wikileaks founder. In February 2016 the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined that the "arbitrary detention of Julian Assange should be brought to an end, that his physical integrity and freedom of movement be respected, and that he should be entitled to an enforceable right to compensation."

Given that the Swedish authorities dropped their investigation into the original charges of rape and sexual molestation — made against Assange in 2010 and which he has always denied and claims were politically motivated — the outstanding UK arrest warrant for breaching bail conditions in 2012 which relates to those charges is surely now moot. Julian Assange, you may recall, sought refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London fearing not extradition to Sweden but the US over his central and high profile role as the face of Wikileaks.

In 2018 not only does the threat of extradition to the US continue to hang over him with this outstanding UK arrest warrant, if anything the threat is even greater, what with the part Wikileaks played in disseminating damning facts about Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and the leadership of the DNC in the run up to the 2016 US presidential election. The ensuing Washington liberal establishment rage that has ensued as a result of Clinton losing the election to Donald Trump has been positively volcanic.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201801261061101548-until-assange-is-f...

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has lost one legal bid to have a UK arrest warrant against him quashed but immediately launched another, to have the British authorities halt any action against him on public interest grounds.

Key points:

• Judge Arbuthnot had rejected a call for a UK arrest warrant against Mr Assange to be revoked
• His lawyer says Mr Assange had "reasonable grounds" for fleeing to the embassy in 2012
• Mr Assange's supporters say his health has deteriorated significantly during his years in the embassy

 

Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she would give her decision on February 13.

A ruling in Mr Assange's favour could pave the way for him to leave the Ecuadorean embassy in London where he has been holed up for more than five years.

Mr Assange, 46, entered the embassy in an apartment in the wealthy district of Knightsbridge to avoid extradition to Sweden to face an allegation of rape, which he denied. 

The Swedish case has since been dropped, but Assange was still subject to the British warrant for breaching his bail conditions in 2012.

He has said he feared Sweden would hand him over to the United States to face prosecution over Wikileaks' publication of leaked US military and diplomatic documents.

Had the judge ruled in Mr Assange's favour, he would have been free to leave the embassy without being arrested on the British warrant.

Judge Arbuthnot had earlier rejected a legal argument to have the arrest warrant against him quashed on the basis that with the Swedish case dropped there was no longer any justification for it.

 

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-07/julian-assange-wikileaks-founder-l...

 

So far, keeping a watch on Julian Assange by the UK government is more than 3.5 million pounds (AU$7 million) per year. The UK public should be outraged for this ridiculous continuous saga... But the media is in bed with the thugs running the UK government whose line was:

"We are clear that our laws must be followed and Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden," a spokeswoman said in a statement on Thursday.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/julian-assanges-security-bill-costs-the-uk-n...

Since there is no more request by Sweden for Assange to be extradited as the charges (which never existed but were only an extradition for interrogation about a "case") Assange should be freed immediately. The United nations said so. Thus the UK is in breach of international laws.

The UK continues to do the bidding for the USA, when the judge says: "I am not persuaded that the warrant should be withdrawn". One can smell the sulfur of politics rather than the sweet perfume of justice... Read from top...

Julian Assange has suffered one of his worst days in the long-running battle that began with publication of classified documents in 2010.

His actions — and the defence of them — were forensically pulled apart by District Court Judge Emma Arbuthnot in a 30-minute judgment that left his supporters reeling.

Ms Arbuthnot said the WikiLeaks founder, holed up in Ecuador's London embassy, lacked "courage".

"Defendants on bail up and down the country, and requested persons facing extradition, come to court to face the consequences of their own choices," she said. 

"He should have the courage to do so too."

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-14/julian-assange-one-of-his-worst-da...

--------------------------------

The Judge, Ms  Emma Arbuthnot. is mistaken and unnecessary bitchy. Assange has had the courage to challenge the status quo. As well, when she says: "I do not accept that Sweden would have rendered Mr Assange to the United States.

"If that had happened there would have been a diplomatic crisis between the UK, Sweden and the US, which would have affected international relationships and extradition proceedings between the states." She is wanking. What she says is a lot of rubbish. The UK might have protested a bit for form but the DEED WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE NONETHELESS. NO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONSHIP WOULD HAVE SUFFERED. Testing her theory would have sent Assange to a jail in the USA.

This Judge appears to be no more than a mouth-piece of the terrible justice system in the UK. Her attitude shows that the convict era is still in existence in England, now designed to protect their lords and masters, the USA.

 

For the judge to say: "He should have the courage to do so too." IS NOT A TERM OF LAW and her diatribe should definitely be challenged IN ANOTHER COURT. Facing extradition to Sweden was a way to shut Assange down. NOTHING ELSE.

Read from top.

 

 

A British judge has upheld an arrest warrant for the WikiLeaks founder, saying that Assange should have the courage to come to court and face justice after more than five years inside Ecuador's London embassy. Sputnik discussed Assange's continuing legal fight with Kristinn Hrafnsson, investigative journalist and former WikiLeaks' spokesperson.

Sputnik: What do you make of this decision by the judge to uphold Assange's arrest warrant?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: This is a continuation of this shameful saga. It has become more and more clear that the prosecution is on behalf of the British authorities, it is quite obvious, when you look at he facts of that matter, and the recent revelations, for example, that it was the Crown prosecution service that pushed Sweden in this matter. It is now known that the Swedish prosecution was willing or wanted to drop the arrest warrant in 2013, but, according to newly surfaced emails, the crown prosecution service was pressing Swedish authorities to continue with the case. Further revelations before that the British authorities were pushing this week to basically to so anything they could upholding the situation and avoiding solution of the matter so Julian Assange could […]. This, of course, is on top of the decision by the UN human rights tribunal two years ago, which came to the conclusion that the Julian Assange situation was amounted to arbitrate attention, and the UN body ordered, basically, the British authorities to do anything in their power to end the situation and to pay damages to Julian Assange.

So it is slowly coming to light to anybody who wants to look at the facts of the matter, that this is a politically motivated persecution, and what is obvious as well, when you look at the statement by American authorities, who claim that it is a priority to prosecute Julian Assange, so this is a political matter entirely.

READ MORE: Assange Sneaking Out is Not a 'Smart Strategy' — Lecturer

Sputnik: Do you think that there are grounds to believe that there is an extradition warrant currently out there for Julian Assage by the Americans?

Kristinn Hrafnsson: I believe it reasonable to assume so, and these kind of extradition requests can be put together at a very short notice and it might already be in place under seal, we don't know that, but if you look at the increasingly harsh statements made by the heads of the intelligence community in the United States it is quite reasonable to assume so.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201802151061678570-assange-arrest-warra...

 

Read from top... Meanwhile our uber Fascist Nazi Kanbra government is saying nothing... Not a pip...

After the ruling, the judge’s familial connections were brought into question by Assange’s supporters, some of whom insist she is linked to the establishment, as well as the UK’s security services.

Arbuthnot’s husband - and ex-Conservative MP - Baron James Arbuthnot is listed as a former director of Security Intelligence Consultancy SC Strategy Ltd. The other two listed directors are former Head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett and Lord Carlile.

The connections have outraged Assange supporters, who insist the legal system is stacked against the man that leaked evidence against the US, as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

Fans of Assange took to Twitter to express their outrage.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/uk/418820-wikileaks-julian-assange-judge/

 

Impartial judge? no fucking way...

The “judge” who dismissed Assange’s case yesterday was “Lady Arbuthnot of Edrom”, wife to Tory peer, former Tory junior Defence Minister and government whip Lord James Arbuthnot. Not to mention Chairman of the Conservative Friends of Israel. Arbuthnot was naturally Eton educated, the son of Major Sir John Sinclair Wemyss Arbuthnot. Of course Lady Arbuthnot’s children were all sent to Eton too.

At the first hearing, I was stunned by reports of completely inappropriate comments by Lady Arbuthnot, including responding to representations about Assange’s health by the comment that medical care is available in Wandsworth prison. As the official charade is that Assange is wanted for nothing but jumping bail, for which a custodial sentence is rare, that callous attempt at gallows humour was redolent of Arbuthnot’s Tory mindset. She also remarked – and repeats it in yesterday’s judgement – that Assange has access to fresh air through the Embassy’s balcony. That is simply untrue. The “balcony” floor is 3 feet by 20 inches and gives no opportunity to exercise. Julian does not have access to it. He is confined to a small area within the Embassy, which still has to function. The balcony is off the Ambassador’s office. He has been given access to it on average about twice a year. But Lady Arbuthnot showed a very selective attitude to getting at the truth.

The truth is that just last week the evidence was published which inarguably proves that the questioning for sexual allegations was only ever a charade to secure Assange in custody for deportation to the US, to face charges for publishing the USA’s dirty secrets. In 2013 Sweden wished to drop the investigation and the arrest warrant, and was subject to strong persuasion from the Crown Prosecution Service to maintain the warrant. This included emails from the CPS telling the Swedes “Don’t you dare” drop the case, and most tellingly of all “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.” That last exposes the entire pretence in just one sentence.

It is worth noting it was not the servile UK corporate media, but the Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi and the Italian newspaper Le Repubblica which obtained these emails through dogged freedom of information requests and High Court proceedings. These revealed the quite stunning truth that the CPS had systematically destroyed most of the highly incriminating correspondence, with only accidental copies of a few emails surviving to be produced in response to the FOI request.

The CPS emails devastate the official charade, which is precisely that this is just a normal extradition case. Furthermore it is admitted at para 43 of Lady Arbuthnot’s judgement that the Crown Prosecution Service actively referred the Swedish authorities to Wikileaks activities in the United States as a reason not to drop the arrest warrant, a fact which the UK mainstream media has still never reported and which obviates Lady Arbuthnot’s trite observation that there is no evidence that Sweden would have extradited Assange to the USA.

Perhaps most stunning of all Lady Arbuthnot opines at para 44 that “I cannot determine from the extracts of correspondence whether the lawyer in the extradition unit acted inappropriately” in preventing the Swedes from dropping the case and referring them to Wikileaks activities vis a vis the USA. Whereas in fact:

a) It provides irrefutable proof that this was never about the frankly unbelievable Swedish sexual allegations, which were always just a pretext for getting Assange into custody over Wikileaks’ publications

b) The reason she only has “extracts” of the correspondence is that the Crown Prosecution Service, as openly admitted in the High Court, tried to destroy all this correspondence, itself an illegal act. Arbuthnot gives them the benefit of their illegality, against all legal principle.

Lady Arbuthnot takes it upon herself to contradict the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, every one of whose members is a much more eminent lawyer than Lady Arbuthnot. The UK had of course every opportunity to raise the points made by Lady Arbuthnot in its appeal to the UN, which appeal also failed.  Lady Arbuthnot’s attempt to undermine a judgement by going back and disputing the actual facts of the case, with no opportunity to answer, is, to say the least, a creative piece of judicial process. But as with her failure to pursue the CPS’ destruction of evidence, it is just an example of her most obvious bias.

“Lady” Arbuthnot set out with one clear and evident purpose, to assist the Crown.

Lady Arbuthnot has perhaps performed an unwitting public service by the brazen nature of her partiality, which exposes beyond refutation the charade of legal process behind the effort to arrest Assange, in reality over the publication of USA secrets. The second half of Para 57 of the judgement sets out how, following his arrest for “jumping bail”, the American extradition request on espionage charges will be handled.

I should like to conclude that “Lady” Arbuthnot is a disgrace to the English justice system, but I fear she is rather typical of it. This intellectually corrupt, openly biased, callous Tory shill is rather a disgrace to humanity itself.

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2018/02/18/all-pretence-is-over-in-persecution-...

 

Where is our malicious malevolent miserable mediocre mass-media de mierda? In the pocket of the pretend justice? Sure... There should be OUTRAGE EVERYWHERE in ALL the newspapers and on ALL TV CHANNELS!!!!

Unfortunately, our media guys and dolls could not muster (nor master) a single apostrophe in a short sentence...

Julian Assange has been hit with new rules limiting his communications by officials at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The new measures include bans on using the phone and having visitors, according to WikiLeaks.

READ MORE: Assange Twitter account back tweeting as #ReconnectJulian campaign takes over

The founder of the whistleblowing website has reportedly found himself isolated within the embassy recently. In March, he had his internet access curtailed after taking to Twitter to criticize Britain’s response to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, as well as repeated comments about Spain’s dispute with Catalonia. At the time, the Ecuadorian government said Assange had breached a written commitment “not to issue messages that might interfere with other states.”

Speaking with the foreign press Wednesday, Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa confirmed that Assange was still being denied internet access while talks between the UK and Ecuador to decide on his fate are still ongoing.

"He still has no access to the Internet and communications. There is a dialogue, there is a will and an interest to move forward in the solution of that matter," he said, according to El Tiempo.

WikiLeaks claims Assange has been silenced because of pressure from the US. The website also says the description of the measures as a “social media ban” undersells the extent to which he’s being held “incommunicado.”

READ MORE: 'Assange is a war hero, he exposed American war crimes' – Vivienne Westwood 

Assange has been a resident in the embassy in Knightsbridge in central London since June 2012. He had been facing extradition to Sweden over allegations he sexually assaulted two women, but he fled to the embassy after violating his bail, claiming he feared Sweden might extradite him to the US, where he would face charges over WikiLeaks’ release of classified US government cables and documents. He remains subject to arrest in the UK for jumping his bail.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/426406-assange-embassy-phone-visitors-ban/

 

This is worse than PRISON. ECUADOR has to be IN BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OF POLITICAL ASYLUM, by depriving Assange of rights.  At this stage, Assange cannot even make a plea to the British authority in getting decent protection should he wish to get out. The BRITS would have to AGREE NOT TO DEPORT HIM TO THE USA and to a FAIR TRIAL in regard to his jumping bail. THE PREVIOUS JUDGE on his case, HAD A BAD CASE OF ANGRY RABIES TOWARDS HIM (Justice? Bullocks!!!)... The UK has gone totally bonkers and back to the time of convicts when people who stole a loaf of bread to feed their family were sent for the term of their natural life to Port Arthur, Tasmania...

 

HIGHLY RIDICULOUS AND UNACCEPTABLE LACK OF JUSTICE.

Boris Johnson stressed "we must defend freedom of speech," which promoted a response by Wikileaks, reminding the Minister that "UK continues to spend millions on its illegal attempts to arrest Julian Assange in violation of two UN rulings explicitly requiring it to cease doing so."

Mr. Assange — via an account run by his legal campaign — responded with harsh criticism, calling the British authorities out on their "hypocritical" approach.

"And that is exactly why you have detained me without charge for eight years in violation of two UN rulings and spent over 20 million pounds spying on me… Your entire international human rights programme is £10.6m you pathetic frauds."

READ MORE: £10 Million Spent on Assange Stakeout As London Taxpayers Foot the Bill

Mr. Assange has been residing in the embassy since 2012, where he sought asylum following an international arrest warrant issued by Sweden amid allegations against the whistleblower related to sexual assault and rape. In 2017, Sweden revoked the warrant, bringing to an end the legal stand-off that lasted 7 years.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201805311064978572-wikileaks-assange-babc...

 

 

FREE ASSANGE TODAY!

You Don’t Have to Like Julian Assange to Defend Him

The effort to extradite and prosecute the WikiLeaks founder threatens the free media.

APR 11, 2019

James Ball

Writer and journalist based in London

LONDON—You do not have to spend a long time in a room with Julian Assange to realize that he will be difficult. It takes a little longer, though, to realize just how difficult dealing with him can be. This was the lesson I learned in 2010, working first with Assange, and then for him at WikiLeaks, as we published tranche after tranche of bombshell material, leaked by Chelsea Manning.

That was the year Assange—and the whistle-blowing website he runs—came to the world’s attention. First it published the dynamite “Collateral Murder” video, showing an attack on a group of people, including two Reuters journalists, by American military helicopters in Iraq.

Though few knew it at the time, this was the first in a series of ever larger and more dramatic leaks of classified documents, shedding unprecedented light on how the United States conducted its wars, its diplomacy, and its detentions: the Afghan and Iraq War logs, the American diplomatic cables, and the Guantánamo Bay files. These were published in partnership with some of the world’s biggest news outlets, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and Le Monde. These organizations quickly learned Assange was not the kind of person they were used to dealing with.

On a personal level, the editors and reporters did not warm to him. He would turn up in their newsrooms wearing a stab vest and no shirt, tell lewd jokes, and make high-handed demands. They complained—sometimes in public. Yet these irritants were the least of their problems: News outlets quickly ran into serious ideological issues with Assange, primarily over the handling of material and how it would be redacted.

As an organization that believed in radical transparency, WikiLeaks wanted all the material in the public domain. Journalists, meanwhile, wanted to redact information from the reports that could put people named in them, most of whom had done nothing wrong, at risk. The clashes became bitter, but having handed over the material already, Assange was chained to what came to feel like a doomed marriage with his publishing partners.

This barely scratches the surface of the difficult relationships Assange has had with those he’s worked with. The real problems ran far deeper. As it rose in prominence thanks to the array of leaked documents, WikiLeaks internally had all but fallen apart. The six people who had done most of the work running the website had a major difference of opinion. It is telling that Assange, the sole holdout against what he saw as insubordination, was the one who stayed. That left WikiLeaks as a virtual one-man band, forced to bring in new acolytes largely in their early 20s (of which I was one) to run the show, a comically inexperienced team for a story that could not have been more complex.

All of which came before the most obvious of the impediments to working with Assange: In late 2010, he was arrested on allegations of sexual assault and rape—accusations he angrily denied, and which his supporters claimed were deep-state smears. Those working with, and for, him were now faced with trying to advance a story and a cause they believed in that were inextricably entwined with a man accused of serious sexual crimes.

As if all of that wasn’t enough, one of Assange’s close associates, introduced to me and other colleagues and associates as “Adam,” turned out in reality to be Israel Shamir, a pro-Putin anti-Semite who was photographed leaving the interior ministry of Belarus just days after being given 100,000 U.S. diplomatic cables. In a world that likes its morality to be black and white, that likes its heroes and villains to be distinct and discernible, Assange in 2010 gave no one what they wanted. He was both a confirmed annoyance and a possible criminal, but also a man who had enabled a new kind of journalistic collaboration and transparency, revealing previously unknown stories of the U.S. at war.

On the surface, Assange has since made himself easier to categorize. Despite his protestations that he was fleeing U.S. prosecution by taking sanctuary in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, the case he was facing at the time came from Sweden, in connection to the rape and sexual-assault allegation against him. Having exhausted every legal avenue against extradition, Assange used the asylum process to evade arrest, denying two women their day in court. One case has been dropped. The other is unlikely to get going, as the U.S., which has filed charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, has taken precedence in extradition.

Not only did Assange evade the justice system that way, but per indictments filed by Robert Mueller’s team, WikiLeaks served as a cutout for Russian intelligence efforts* to disrupt the 2016 U.S. presidential election, via its publication of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee. Coupled with the revelation of Twitter correspondence between WikiLeaks and Donald Trump Jr., Assange’s estrangement from his onetime liberal base seems complete.

Indeed, on almost every level—personal, professional, and ideological—Assange has found himself with few longtime associates, and with plenty of people holding him in contempt.

So, then, the easy option is to shrug off his new arrest and the extradition effort that will follow it. Authorities on both sides of the Atlantic are clearly hoping few will rally to support him. By filing computer-misuse charges rather than relying on the Espionage Act, prosecutors are apparently trying to hive off free-speech and free-media concerns.

That effort should not be allowed to succeed. The charges leveled against Assange stem from the 2010 Manning leaks, which were judged to have been in the public interest by some of the world’s most significant and thoughtful news publishers, who ran some of the revelations in their pages. That material was received from a source who acted in what she perceived to be the public interest, and was not motivated by malice or personal gain.

The combination of an ideologically (rather than financially) motivated whistle-blower with firsthand knowledge of the material alongside the editorial judgment of major outlets forms the bedrock of public-interest journalism. Any attempt to swing the needle against that, or to criminalize it by tying it to hacking on a technicality, threatens quality journalism and threatens the free media. More simply than that, while Julian Assange might deserve punishment for other things he is accused of having done in his life, he does not deserve to be punished for what he published in 2010. Barring some new and major revelation, neither extradition nor prosecution over his work with WikiLeaks is merited.

Assange might be an asshole. Scratch that; Assange is an asshole. But we’re going to have to stand up for him anyway.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

 

 

Read all:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/julian-assange-arreste...

 

 

Larrikin is an Australian English term meaning "a mischievous young person, an uncultivated, rowdy but good hearted person", or "a person who acts with apparent disregard for social or political conventions".[1]

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the term generally meant "a lout, a hoodlum"[2] or "a young urban rough, a hooligan",[1] meanings which became obsolete.[2]

Australian vernacular speech commonly inverts a word-meaning ironically to a diametrical opposite, e.g, nicknaming a red-haired person as "Bluey".[11] In similar fashion highly derogatory terms such as "bastard" and "larrikin" are frequently deployed with affectionate, even respectful connotations. For example, in 1965 Australian swimmer Dawn Fraser was banned from competition by the Australian Swimming Union for various incidents at the previous year's Summer Olympics. Fraser was later described as having a "larrikin streak" as well as being an "iconic figure", and was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1988.[12]

The evolution of larrikinism in Australia is summarised in the publisher's description of a 2012 book by Melissa Bellanta, Larrikins: A History:

“From the true-blue Crocodile Hunter to the blue humour of Stiffy and Mo, from the Beaconsfield miners to The Sentimental Bloke, Australia has often been said to possess a 'larrikin streak'.

Today, being a larrikin has positive connotations and we think of it as the key to unlocking the Australian identity: a bloke who refuses to stand on ceremony and is a bit of a scallywag. When it first emerged around 1870, however, 'larrikin' was a term of abuse, used to describe teenage working-class hell-raisers who populated dance halls and cheap theatres. Crucially, the early larrikins were female as well as male[13]

”

It can be argued that the larrikin tradition of disdain for authority, propriety and the often conservative norms of bourgeois Australia (as evident, for example, in the country's history of censorship and the nation's receptiveness to paternalistic leaders) are two sides of a self-reinforcing dynamic; the social conservatism of the mainstream fuels the undercurrent of larrikinism and rebellion, which, in turn, is seen as demonstrating that a firm hand is needed. This is sometimes referred to as the "larrikin-wowser nexus", "wowser" being an Australian colloquial term for a person of puritanical mores.[14]

 

The spirit of Eureka lives on... far more edgy than "Crocodile Dundee"... We have to defend Julian. 

 

 

Read from top.

 

"... reports that could put people named in them, most of whom had done nothing wrong, at risk." This has been used by many journalists to denigrate Assange. In fact, "people who have done nothing wrong" are part of the problem, because they support the dark side of the empire by being the lovely and innocent front-shopkeepers of it. This has been discussed in our exposé of the Double Cross System where ordinary people are used unknowingly to do the dirty work, ordinary people who often end up dead...

This was obvious when Wilson exposed the Uranium deals as fake and his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA operative was exposed by the US administration as such, to punishing Wilson. This distracted the media's attention from the reality that the Administration was using FAKE documents and carried on using the said documents to prove "Saddam's guilt".

 

*Eventually, we will find that the Russians had nothing to do with the dump on Hillary bt Wikileaks, but disaffected DNC member(s) who got pissed off by the treatment of Bernie Sanders. Nothing more.

 

In all of this, Assange is Hacker Number One in the world. His expertise on the technique of hacking is based on understanding the deviousness of human nature coupled to a massive intuitive mind that understands the processes of encryption. Some hackers may be more agile now, because Assange has been "holed up", while we need to consider that the internet is like the universe — 75 per cent of it being "dark"... Unseen... 

Julian Assange’s mother has accused the US and UK governments of “slowly, cruelly and unlawfully” killing the WikiLeaks founder because he revealed war crimes and corruption.

“My son Julian Assange is being slowly, cruelly & unlawfully assassinated by the US and UK Governments, for multi-award winning journalism revealing war crimes & corruption!” she wrote.

She also tweeted a link to a report from a United Nations expert who called for a stop to the “collective persecution” of the whistleblower.

 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/466267-assange-mother-us-uk-governments/

 

 

Read from top. Read all other articles...

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/36427

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/36698

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/36446

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/32971

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/37009

 

And many more...

the truth is that our masters don't want us to know the truth...