[SeaGypsy]

Watch the video linked above Planty. The Swedish prosecution is a set up as obvious as daylight. Yeahbut is correct. If Assange goes to Sweden he WILL definitely be going to the USA, one way or another.

So much for freedom of speech, the press or the internet! The ones going to the Gulag should be the asswipes in uniform who did the murdering in Collateral Murder, not whoever put the video online.

[Schweinshaxe]

Sweden is very liberal country and it believes in strict sexual equality. Under Swedish law Julian Assange committed a crime when he didn't inform the Swedish women he wasn't using a condom, as he exposed them to unwanted pregnancy and infection by sexual diseases without their knowledge or agreement.

According to the British tabloids, Mr. Assange had a small John Thomas and "was the worst sex I've ever had" according to Mrs. Anna Ardin, one of the plaintiffs in this case. And to make things worse, he didn't even wear a rubber on his stunted appendage.

To be impregnated by this white-haired, Australian ectomorph is clearly an abomination to God. Mrs. Ardin is after all a Swedish woman and we don't want the gene pool in Sweden to be contaminated by dirt. I therefore support the decision to extradite him to Sweden so that he can swiftly be sent to the USA to be interrogated at Guantanamo Bay.

[Shaved Monkey]

He doesnt need to go to Guantunamo for imprisonment they have bought Guantunamo imprisonment to him.
He was wearing a leg tag and under house arrest and curfew for 2 years.
That may as well be prison,it carries psychological torture without even needing to apply it.
Wiki leaks is no longer the headline grabbing story state crimes can continue un published
BAU.

[SeaGypsy]

It's an interesting aside to this story that the UN seems to have utterly ignored Hilary Clinton's multiple serious breaches of their Code of Conduct, revealed by Wikileaks.
Like if state crimes are reported by 'nefarious organizations' they are ignored; even where they are crimes against other states. No doubt Assange and Wikileaks are the most frightening thing to happen to government ever. The response of doing anything to shut down the site and lock up it's originator forever seem so natural, don't they? This story is disgusting.

[Plantagenet]

Anyone thinking the case against Assange in Sweden might be legit should watch this/ or read the transcript linked at the bottom of the page. The Swedish prosecution is totally full of b/s.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 549280.htm

OK. I read the story and the transcript.

It says: "On August 11th, 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to attend a conference organised by the Swedish Brotherhood - a branch of the Social Democratic Party. He was offered Anna Ardin's apartment while she was away, but Ardin returned home a day early on Friday the 13th. She invited Assange to stay the night, and they had sex. She would later tell police Assange had violently pinned her down and ignored her requests to use a condom. Assange denies this.

If Assange pinned Ms. Ardin down and forced her into unprotected sex (i.e. without a condom) then he may very well have committed a sexual assault. If Mr. Assange has AIDS, and is knowingly forcing women to have unprotected sex with him, then he is behaving very badly. The case comes down to "he said she said" but that isn't unusual in sexual assault cases.

However, Ms. Ardin's story is supported by the fact that another Swedish women also had a issue with Assange over unwanted unprotected sex. Its not unreasonable that the two women would want Mr. Assange to take an AIDS text, since he coerced them into unprotected sex.

Mr. Assange refused to take an AIDS test so when the two women compared notes and realized they were both in the same situation they went to the police to see if there was any way to legally compel Mr. Assange into taking an AIDS test. They were afraid he'd given them AIDS.

This whole situation could have been avoided if Mr. Assange would've (1) used a condom as the two women requested or (2) taken an AIDS and sent the women the results to assure them he hadn't given them AIDS.

Mr. Assange is an international celebrity for his important work on press freedom, but he may have committed a crime in Sweden if/when he forced two of his female supporters there to have unprotected sex with him.

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

A fact not reported in the transcript linked by SeaGypsy is that one Mr. Assange's sex partners says he had sex with her when she was asleep. It is illegal in Sweden to engage in sexual acticity without consent, which is the case when the other person is asleep. The rape/molestation criminal charge is tied to the unwanted sex act he performed while the woman was asleep.

Also, another important fact not mentioned in the transcript is that The Swedish Communicable Disease Act makes it crime in Sweden for people with AIDS (HIV) to have sex with people without informing them they have the disease. If Mr. Assange would return to Sweden and take an AIDS test, he could clear this potential charge up quickly.

[dissident]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nationa ... 24e1l.html

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”.

The embassy identified a wide range of criminal charges the US could bring against Assange, including espionage, conspiracy, unlawful access to classified information and computer fraud.

Australian diplomats expect that any charges against Assange would be carefully and narrowly drawn in an effort to avoid conflict with the First Amendment free speech provisions of the US Constitution.

The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.

[SeaGypsy]

The news is building on this, soon Assange will address the media in a balcony speech, this should be interesting.
The British don't seem phased about wasting resources.

[Plantagenet]

The news is building on this, soon Assange will address the media in a balcony speech, this should be interesting.
The British don't seem phased about wasting resources.

Assange skipped his bail. Thats a crime in the UK. Now Assange faces charges in the UK as well as in Sweden.

The UK magistrate set bail at something like 200,000 pounds (about $315,000) plus two sureties of 20,000 pounds each (about $31,500)....altogether Assange owes the UK ca. $375,000. In addition he now faces criminal charges in the UK for his failure to appear in court as he agreed to do when he was granted bail----the maximum sentence for skipping bail in a UK crown court is a year in prison.

The UK has their own arrest warrant out for Assange now. If the UK captures him, he'll be put on trial for bail skipping and probably sent to prison for 6-12 months in the UK. Only after Assange finishes serving his time in prison for skipping bail in the UK would Sweden's request for extradition be considered for Assange's involvement in possible sex assaults in Sweden.

[EnergyUnlimited]

If Assange pinned Ms. Ardin down and forced her into unprotected sex (i.e. without a condom) then he may very well have committed a sexual assault. If Mr. Assange has AIDS, and is knowingly forcing women to have unprotected sex with him, then he is behaving very badly. The case comes down to "he said she said" but that isn't unusual in sexual assault cases.

Why not to accept an AIDS test in Britain to resolve issues once and for all?
And even if probability of HIV transmission during unprotected heterosexual contact with HIV-positive person is rather low (~0.1% per go according to some publications), Assange should go to rot in prison, if he is actually doing that.

A fact not reported in the transcript linked by SeaGypsy is that one Mr. Assange's sex partners says he had sex with her when she was asleep. It is illegal in Sweden to engage in sexual acticity without consent, which is the case when the other person is asleep. The rape/molestation criminal charge is tied to the unwanted sex act he performed while the woman was asleep.

And if she even didn't wake up (assuming that she was not under influence of drugs), there are 2 basic possibilities left:

1. She is a really hardened whore.

2. He didn't have anything useful to stick her in.

[EnergyUnlimited]

...but I would really watch my liver while going to bed with one like that:

BTW,
She is their supermodel, so it must be a truly frightening experience to try sex with ordinary one.

[Plantagenet]

Assange appeared on his balcony today and spoke to the media and several hundred supporters.

Assange speaks!

He called on Obama to "do the right thing"

He called for the FBI to stop investigating Wikileaks

He praised Ecuador

Assange doesn't seem to have said anything at all about his own legal problems, including the $375,000 he owes the UK and the criminal charges pending against him for skipping bail in the UK and the investigation of the two sex assaults in Sweden.

[mattduke]

Contrary to the ill-informed and misleading posts on this thread, Assange has not been charged with any crime by Sweden. He is wanted for questioning. Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned while in Sweden, Uk, and now in Equador. Remote questioning is quite normal and is used frequently in matters like these. Sweden has refused all offers and demands extradition and will not promise not to pass him off to the US where he faces torture and murder. Britain offers asylum in these circumstances even to the likes of Pinochet, responsible for the murder of thousands. This is obviously about persecuting another whistleblower.

[SeaGypsy]

He has also offered to have an AIDS test performed by a Swedish nominated Doctor. He also just happens to be the first person the Swedish prosecutors office has decided to chase on the basis of the no-condom law. The morning after the supposed un-consensual sex, which the 'victim' did not resist once she woke up, in her own words "I've just been partying with the coolest people in the world!"

His speech is up now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvrLTBvWpd8&noredirect=1

His point on the USA's war on freedom of speech is apt. His plug for Manning is courageous. This is obviously a case of whistleblower persecution. In what profession, if you discover your colleague is murdering your clients, is it either- not ok to report such or, there is nobody to report to who will listen and protect your rights if you do so?
This is essentially what happened in the Manning case. The subsequent embarrassment to the Secretary of State ensured an all out prosecution of both the whistleblower and his confidant.

Most modern countries have whistleblower protection as law and major companies/ government departments are obliged to have systems in place which function as both process and refuge; the instigator's claims are investigated and where action is warranted action is taken. When these systems are not in place, or are dysfunctional, there is an increased risk of malicious action by employees. The employee making the report does so out of self respect and respect for the organisation, at detriment to his colleagues. It's not an easy thing to do, but there are times when it is the right thing to do.

The gung- ho calls for Assange's assassination in some quarters of the USA strikes as bizarre, when it is most often the same corners calling out for the most liberal gun laws in the world, on the basis of the Constitution. Freedom of Speech is at least as important as The Right to Bear Arms. As for chasing someone around the world for getting laid twice in one night and running out of condoms; well, it's a bit sus.

[Plantagenet]

Contrary to the ill-informed and misleading posts on this thread Assange is not a whistleblower----he is a member of the press who published info on a website called "Wikileaks".

Bradley Manning is the whistleblower----he was in the military and he's the one who leaked top secret info in US diplomatic cables to Wikileaks.

Assange is in no danger of prosecution----the NY Times and Washington Post have been publishing similar secret info for decades. The NY Times even published some of the exact same material Assange published on-line on Wikileaks, and you don't see the NY Times reporters being afraid and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The NY Times knows that the US isn't going to prosecute them or Assange because they are just reporters.

In contrast, Bradly Manning actually is the whistleblower. He's been charged and arrested and held under very severe conditions that resemble those at Abu Gharib. Unlike the whiney Mr. Assange, Mr. Manning actually is being criminally prosecuted for his whistle-blowing.

The fact that all this attention is being lavished on Assange, who isnt' the whistleblower and isn't being prosecuted, while Bradley Manning the real whistleblower actually is being prosecuted but is largely ignored by the media and Assange's adoring fans, just shows again that we all live in celebrity culture, and celebrities like Assage command attention that real whistleblowers don't.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Assange is in no danger of prosecution----the NY Times and Washington Post have been publishing similar secret info for decades.

Some fools still believe in impartiality of American justice system.

The NY Times even published some of the exact same material Assange published on-line on Wikileaks, and you don't see the NY Times reporters being afraid and hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy. The NY Times knows that the US isn't going to prosecute them or Assange because they are just reporters.

These are usually controlled, prearranged and .gov vetted leaks.
As genuine as prostitute's orgasm (with a 50 years older client).

In contrast, Bradly Manning actually is the whistleblower. He's been charged and arrested and held under very severe conditions that resemble those at Abu Gharib. Unlike the whiney Mr. Assange, Mr. Manning actually is being criminally prosecuted for his whistle-blowing.

Agreed.

The fact that all this attention is being lavished on Assange, who isnt' the whistleblower and isn't being prosecuted, while Bradley Manning the real whistleblower actually is being prosecuted but is largely ignored by the media and Assange's adoring fans, just shows again that we all live in celebrity culture, and celebrities like Assage command attention that real whistleblowers don't.

Assange is wanted for making a recognizable platform shitting on US.gov, and yet beyond sufficient control of .gov.

[Tanada]

Official documents expose Australian government’s complicity in the torture of Assange

Official documents obtained by lawyer Kellie Tranter under a series of freedom of information (FOI) requests have exposed in detail the Australian government’s knowledge of, and complicity in, the denial of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange’s fundamental legal, democratic and human rights.

The material, collated in a timeline produced by Tranter and featured in a Grayzone article by Kit Klarenberg earlier this month, demonstrates that senior Australian officials have repeatedly been apprised, by Assange and others, of his deteriorating medical condition and attacks on his basic rights.

Publicly, however, government ministers, joined by the Labor opposition, continued to insist that all was well with Assange. They have proclaimed their “respect” for the British legal process as it oversees his indefinite detention in a maximum-security prison without charge, and facilitates a US extradition request aimed at locking Assange away for life for the “crime” of exposing illegal US wars, mass surveillance and diplomatic conspiracies.

The cables deal with the period following Assange’s brutal arrest by the British police on April 11, 2019. Assange’s internationally-recognised status as a political refugee was illegally terminated by the Ecuadorian government, as it cultivated greater ties with the US. The Trump administration immediately unveiled an indictment against the WikiLeaks founder over publishing activities, vindicating his decade-long warnings, and Assange was taken to the maximum-security Belmarsh Prison, dubbed Britain’s Guantánamo Bay.

The earliest correspondence, from April 2019, details warnings from Assange and his lawyer Gareth Pierce to Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) officials that the WikiLeaks founder’s possessions in the embassy were being held by the Ecuadorian authorities.

DFAT would contact the Ecuadorian authorities about this. But upon being advised in May, 2019, that Assange’s possessions were “under the authority and jurisdiction of the Judicial System of the Republic of Ecuador,” the Australian officials declared they were powerless to intervene. As Assange and WikiLeaks had warned, the possessions, including privileged legal papers, would be turned over to the US as it was seeking Assange’s extradition and prosecution.

Other issues raised by Assange and his lawyers in April 2019 included the tardiness of Belmarsh administration in arranging treatment for a protracted dental issue, and the draconian conditions of Assange’s confinement.

On April 18, Pierce wrote to DFAT: “In addition to raising the particular concern about urgent need for him to be seen by a dentist, we would welcome your intervention in relation to the current regime under which he is being held—of isolation in a single cell for 23 hours a day. We are aware that Mr Assange is already affected by the years spent in the Embassy.” While DFAT was in repeated contact with Belmarsh, the conditions would remain throughout Assange’s almost six-month sentence on trumped-up bail offences.

The most significant documents relate to the sharp deterioration of Assange’s health, which began in May 2019 and continued over the following months. Tranter summarises a May 17 DFAT report on a visit by Australian officials to Belmarsh: “Assange expressed concern about surviving the current process and fears that he would die if taken to the United States… Consular officers noticed that he had appeared to have lost weight… Assange stated he had not been able to eat for a long period and was now only eating small amounts of food.…”

The following day, on May 18, Assange was moved to Belmarsh medical wing, after a prison review found that he was having difficulty controlling thoughts of self-harm and suicide.

On May 20, there was an entry in Assange’s Australian consular file that was entirely redacted when provided to Tranter. On the 30th, an entry cited a WikiLeaks Tweet that day, announcing Assange’s transfer to the medical wing and expressing grave concerns for his health. The same day, DFAT officials in Canberra wrote to their colleagues in London: “WikiLeaks has tweeted today that Assange has been moved to the health ward and that it holds ‘grave concerns’ for his health. Grateful post contact the prison and attempt to ascertain the veracity of the report and obtain an update on his health and well being.”

Then, on May 1, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer issued an explosive report, finding that Assange had been the victim of medically-verifiable psychological torture. Melzer denounced the decade-long persecution of Assange by the US, Britain and Sweden as being responsible for Assange’s medical conditions, and condemned a “public mobbing” of the WikiLeaks founder by the major powers and much of the corporate media.

Melzer wrote that Australia was complicit in the psychological torture, given its abandonment of the WikiLeaks founder. He also stated that Assange’s ongoing confinement, under draconian conditions and in a maximum-security prison, constituted a continuation of the state torture.

That very day, DFAT published a statement rejecting the finding. “The Australian Government is a staunch defender of human rights and a strong advocate for humane treatment in the course of judicial processes. We are confident that Mr Assange is being treated appropriately in Belmarsh Prison,” it declared.

The statement referenced the previous exchanges between Assange, DFAT and Belmarsh authorities over his dental and other issues, declaring that DFAT had “previously raised any health concerns identified with Belmarsh prison authorities and these have been addressed.” It noted that inquiries had been made with Belmarsh over the previous day’s reports that Assange had been transferred to the medical wing, but “due to the privacy considerations that we extend to all consular clients, we will not disclose further details relating to Mr Assange's physical or mental health.”

This was a cynical dodge. The files obtained by Tranter show that from May 30, Australian officials repeatedly contacted Belmarsh for six straight days. Their inquiries were ignored. In other words, when it issued its statement of confidence in the treatment of Assange at Belmarsh, DFAT was being ignored by the prison authorities, who were not providing it with any information on Assange’s medical crisis.

Despite the stonewalling, there was no intervention by the Australian government to ascertain Assange’s medical condition, or to ensure that he was receiving appropriate treatment.

Over the following months, appeals from Assange’s family and lawyers for an Australian government intervention were rejected, including for it to compel Belmarsh to allow an independent medical assessment.

On October 21, 2019, Assange attended a pre-trial court hearing, with observers shocked by his frail appearance and confusion, including in response to basic questions. A DFAT report said nothing about Assange’s deterioration.

In its aftermath, Pierce wrote to the Australian High Commission in London, warning of an “impending crisis” of Assange’s health. She noted that it “was clear for everyone present in court to observe (and was reported by the majority of press present) that Mr Assange is in shockingly poor condition and that he, a person of high intelligence, is struggling not only to cope but to articulate what he wishes to articulate.” Warnings to the prison regarding Assange’s health were being ignored.

On November 1, DFAT officials did meet with Assange. The WikiLeaks founder condemned then Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne for publicly claiming that he was being treated like all other prisoners. According to the consular report on the meeting: “Assange stated he was suffering from sensory deprivation and that he was dying. He said that his psychological state was so bad that his mind was shutting down.” In the lead-up to extradition hearings, Assange “said he had no access to a PC, he has no pen and therefore cannot write or do any research to prepare his defence.”

Following the visit, however, neither DFAT nor the Australian government sought to alter Assange’s conditions in any way. In December, Doctors4Assange group, comprised of hundreds of medical experts, wrote to the Australian government condemning its inaction and demanding it intervene to secure Assange’s transfer to a university teaching hospital.

The statement, which was also sent to the Labor Party, went unanswered for months. In March, 2020, a DFAT representative replied to a follow-up from the doctors by expressing confidence that Assange’s treatment in Belmarsh was “appropriate;” that he would receive “due process;” and the Australian authorities could do nothing.

The documents obtained by Tranter are themselves a demonstration of what Melzer correctly identified as the Australian government’s complicity in the torture of Assange. With its non-reaction to Assange’s medical crisis in late 2019, the Australian government and Labor clearly indicated that they would stand by and watch on, even if his persecution resulted in the WikiLeaks’ founder’s death.

As the WSWS has repeatedly explained, the Australian government has a clear political and legal responsibility to intervene in defence of citizens who are subjected to persecution abroad. Its failure to do so in the Assange case is bound up with the US-Australia alliance, and the Australian ruling elite’s own intensifying assault on democratic rights in response to mounting social and political opposition to war, inequality and authoritarianism. The documents show that an Australian government will only uphold its responsibility to intervene in defence of Assange, if it is compelled to do so by a mass movement from below.

LINKY

[Kerse]

Very informative post