Something Rotten in the State of Sweden: 8 Big Problems with the ‘Case’ Against Assange
by Naomi Wolf
Exclusive to News from Underground
Now that Andrew Kreig, of the Justice Integrity Project, has confirmed Karl Rove’s role as an advisor to the Swedish government in its prosecution of Julian Assange on sexual misconduct charges, it is important that we note the many glaring aberrations in the handling of Assange’s case by the authorities in Sweden.
Dr. Brian Palmer, a social anthropologist at Uppsala University, explained on Kreig’s radio show last month that Karl Rove has been working directly as an advisor to the governing Moderate Party. Kreig also reported, in Connecticut Watchdog, that the Assange accusers’ lawyer is a partner in the law firm Borgström and Bodström, whose other name partner, Thomas Bodström, is a former Swedish Minister of Justice. In that office, Bodström helped approve a 2001 CIA rendition request to Sweden, to allow the CIA to fly two asylum-seekers from Sweden to Egypt, where they were tortured. This background compels us to review the case against Assange with extreme care.
Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.
Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:
1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.
Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence. The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent.)
The Assange transcript is therefore anomalous, as it does not suggest in any way that either woman was unconsenting, or felt threatened. On this basis alone, therefore, the Assange transcript is completely aberrant.
2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.
The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.
This is completely unheard-of in sex crime procedures; and the burden should be on Clare Mongomery, QC, or Marianne Ny, to produce a single other example of this being permitted.
Never will two victims be allowed by police to come in and tell their stories together–even, or especially, if the stories are about one man.
Indeed, this is a great frustration to those who advocate for rape victims. You can have seven alleged victims all accusing the same guy — and none will be permitted to tell their stories together.
It doesn’t matter if they coordinated in advance as the Assange accusers did, or if they are close friends and came in together: the police simply will not take their complaints together or even in the same room. No matter how much they may wish to file a report together, their wishes won’t matter: the women will be separated, given separate interview times and even locations, and their cases will be processed completely separately.
The prosecutor, rather than being able to draw on both women’s testimony, will actually have to struggle to get the judge to allow a second or additional accusation or evidence from another case.
Usually other such evidence will NOT be allowed. Miss A would have her case processed and then Miss W — with absolutely no ability for the prosecutor to draw form one set of testimony to the next.
The reason for this is sound: it is to keep testimony from contaminating separate trials–a source of great frustration to prosecutors and rape victim advocates.
Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and policy.
3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.
There’s another remarkable aberration in this transcript: the report of a former boyfriend of “Miss A,” testifying that she’d always used a condom in their relationship.
Now, as one who has supported many rape victims through the reporting process, I have to say that the inclusion of this utterly atypical–and, in fact, illegal–note will make anyone who has counselled rape victims through the legal process’ feel as though her head might explode.
There’s a rape shield law in Sweden (as there is throughout Europe) that prevents anyone not involved in the case to say anything to the police, whether it be positive or negative, about the prior sexual habits of the complainant. No matter how much a former or current boyfriend may want to testify about his girlfriends’ sex practices — even if that woman wants him to — the courts will, rightly, refused to hear it, or record it, or otherwise allow it in the record.
4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.
Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney.
So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.
5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.
No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.
There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.
Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.
6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.
Typically, if a woman needs a lawyer in addition to the prosecutor who is pursuing her case (as in the Swedish system) she will be advised by rape victim advocates, the prosecutor and the police to use a criminal attorney — someone who handles rape cases or other kinds of assault, who is familiar with the judges and the courts in these cases. She will never hire a high-powered corporate attorney who does not specialize in these cases or work with the local court that would be hearing her sex crime case if it ever got to trial. Given that a law firm such as this one charges about four hundred euros an hour, and a typical rape case takes eight months to a year to get through the courts – given that legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros, which young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to ask: who is paying the legal bills?
7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.
The two women went to police to ask if they could get Assange to take an HIV test.
Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative. This is utterly unheard of and against standard sex crime policy. The Police do not act as medical mediators for STD testing, since rapists are dangerous and vindictive. A victim is NEVER advised to manage, even with police guidance, any further communication with her assailant that is not through formal judicial channels. Under ordinary procedures, the women’s wishes for the alleged assailant to take medical tests would be discouraged by rape victim advocates and deterred and disregarded by police.
First, the State normally has no power to compel a man who has not been convicted, let alone formally charged, to take any medical tests whatsoever. Secondly, rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels.
8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.
The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Often, frustratingly, rape victims themselves cannot get their own full set of records related to their cases. In normal circumstances, the leaking of those transcripts would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police and prosecutors who had access to them. Any official who leaks such confidential papers faces serious penalties; lawyers who do so can be disbarred. And yet no one in this case is being investigated or facing any consequences. It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.
Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.
And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.
Some further points:
The womens’ combined testimony was not recorded on tape, only summarised by the interviewer. The summary containing the rape allegation was never read back to the woman and was never approved by her, rendering it utterly useless in court.
Swedish law requires the prosecutor to be strictly neutral and also consider exculpatory evidence. In an SMS to a friend shortly after the alleged rape, Woman W stated that she was only half asleep (also stated in a testimony by another friend). This SMS has not been made available to Mr Assange’s defence team, only briefly shown to his Swedish lawyer who was not allowed to take notes and forced to accept a gag order.
I wish the details were correct in this. I fear that the argument falls like a deck of cards, simply because someone might point out that it’s Miss W’s ex-boyfrioend – not Miss A’s.
And it is Miss A who deleted tweets, during the evening crayfish party. Thus, there are no tweets at the time of the alleged “half asleep / fully asleep / maybe awake” post breakfast sex that is Miss W’s entire case.
No tweets from Ms W, correct. SMS’s to the same effect though (see my post above)
The tweet-deleter is Ms A and nobody else. Another error: Claes Borgström indeed specializes in sex crime cases, a somewhat dubious practice given the fact that in his equal-opportunities ombudsman days, he was instrumental in forging the very legislation he and his partner, the former minister of justice, are now very busy profiting from.
“Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.”
Well, maybe not in “safe” countries but in Sweden it does: do a search on Billy Butt or go here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Butt.
On that case, the swedish police let NINE women report the accusations, together.
The complainants’ lawyer may be “high-powered” and well-connected, but he is not a specialist in corporate law (on his website he lists “criminal law, public defender/attorney, family law, discrimination) . He most well known as the defense attorney who managed to get a mentally ill man convicted of 8 (!) murders he did not commit, and somewhat known as a politician.
As to who pays, that is simple to answer: the Swedish state, and if the case is won the accused (ff the attorney is seeking a too high amount the court might order a more reasonable amount).
The discussion about rape-shield laws is interesting, but not applicable here. This case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and the police(led by the prosecutor) can interview whomever they want for background info.
The Swedish police have a bad reputation when it comes to leaking to the press.
What is highly remarkable is that the police (in one of the witness interviews) admit that some of the early “leaks” weren’t in fact leaks, but material _released_ to journalists. (This would be in the interim between Eva Finne throwing out all but one charge/suspicion, and Marianne Ny re-opening the whole mess.)
Dear Sir
Please can you advise me of the name of the defence lawyer for the two ladies so that I may write to him.
Thank you.
Mrs Latham
People are seriously trying to pick apart the points in this article, as though they actually believe there is any validity at all to the charges against Assange? Some of you folks need to give your head a shake, this is a politically motivated farce, pure and simple.
Interesting commentary on this here; http://charonqc.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/lawcast-219-carl-gardner-on-the-assange-asylum-issues/
This case is hotting up with Ecuador coming to the party and Britain political bullies taking liberties, like they’ve been doing for too long now.
It has been plan fro the start these charges are a farce. People talk as if he’s having a good time ‘avoiding’ justice in the Ecuador Embassy. But he is rather in Limbo land. Poor chap. I suppose anything’s better than American justice. All that I’ve hears from Clinton and co. sounds like he’s already been condemned
Dear Mark Crispin Miller,
Just found this article on your site. I am astonished about the number of errors in it. Did you you do any checking of the so called facts before you decided to publish it? Or is it just that the article suited your particular brand of conspiracy theories?
I would like to know what you have done in order to check the facts?
And if you haven’t checked any facts, is that your standard practice before you publish articles on your site?
I want to know so I can label you correctly.
Best regards,
Göran Rudling
P.S. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.
Most of this either:
1. Doesn’t apply
2. Is a misinterpretation of events
3. Is a misinterpretation of the law in Sweden
4. Is a misinterpretation of process
Not very credible, really.
“Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program.”
Nope. Rove was much more than just ‘a party’. As head of the White House Office of Strategic Initiative he was one of the primary authors of the torture/rendition program of which, he said, he couldn’t be more proud…
Overall though, the points in the article were well made.
What I’m left wondering is, WHO’S pulling Rove’s strings and maneuvering him against Assange? Obviously Rove’s not doing this on his own initiative so, who’s he working for?
Also Rove looks to me like the pig version of pedobear. That is all.
I feel that Julian Assange is like a Jesus and the US are the dirty Romans that want him handed over for persecution as the man is too intelligent and powerful. I mean, if i was a government…I would be afraid of him. I’m not racist again Americans or anything…but that’s kinda really what it looks like.
Christine Assange, mother of WikiLeaks founder and Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, has spent many long months reaching out to supporters and urging them to contact their local political representatives. Recognising that many politicians still do not know the true story behind WikiLeaks and her son’s legal battles, she asks supporters to give them the facts and request their assistance.
Christine has been using her @AssangeC Twitter account and the #fact4mp hashtag to post the following important talking points for supporters to disseminate:
1. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have not been charged with any crime in any country in the world. See http://justice4assange.com
2. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been recognized for quality investigative journalism with many prestigious awards, including:
– Julian was unanimously given the Sam Adams Award in 2010, for Integrity in Intelligence (Iraq War Logs) by a panel of retired senior U.S. military and intelligence officers.
– Julian won the Amnesty UK Media Award in 2009 for the “Cry of Blood” report into extra-judicial killings and disappearances in Kenya.
– Julian won The Economist magazine’s Freedom of Expression Award in 2008.
– Julian won the Sydney Peace Foundation’s Gold Medal in 2011 “For exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights”. The Sydney Peace Foundation has only awarded 4 Gold Medals in 16 years, with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama being 2 of the other 3 recipients.
– Julian won the Martha Gellhorn Prize For Journalism in 2011: “He is brave, determined and independent and a true agent of people not power… [WikiLeaks’] goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism.”
– Julian won a Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism in 2011.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange for more.
3. WikiLeaks has a perfect record regarding information reliability. No government has denied the authenticity of any documents.
4. WikiLeaks redacts its documents, so to date not one person has been physically harmed by its publications.
5. WikiLeaks exposes government and corporate corruption, fraud, shady deals, war crimes, torture, and kidnapping. It is in the public interest to know these things.
6. WikiLeaks partnered with The Guardian, New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El Pais to publish Cablegate. Why target only WikiLeaks?
7. WikiLeaks acts in accordance with traditional journalism. It publishes information given by various sources.
8. WikiLeaks acts like traditional media but protects its sources with a secure anonymous Drop Box.
9. WikiLeaks is a legal, legitimate, online news publisher, recognized as such by other journalist organizations worldwide. In 2012, WikiLeaks is partnered with nearly 100 media organisations around the world.
10. WikiLeaks is a non-profit independent publisher funded by donations from ordinary citizens from around the world. Because WikiLeaks believes in transparency its financial records are publicly accountable.
11. WikiLeaks goal is altruistic: “Justice Through Transparency.” WikiLeaks is a catalyst for democracy movements around the world.
12. WikiLeaks launched in 2006 to provide safety for whistleblowers in Third World regimes and dictatorships, and to inform the world of their plight.
13. For the first four years, WikiLeaks published government and corporate wrong-doings from many countries.
14. In 2010 WikiLeaks received files for the U.S. Collateral Murder video, Afghan War Diaries, Iraq War logs, and U.S. Embassy cables.
15. The U.S. war videos and documents revealed war crimes and lying by the U.S. government, regarding civilian casualties and war progress.
16. U.S. cables revealed government and corporate exploitation, bullying, and manipulation of other governments (as well as good actions by U.S. officials).
17. The cables revealed and confirmed to people WHO in their own governments and corporations was involved in shady wrong-doings.
18. WikiLeaks exposed the attempted ALP “Clean Feed” internet censorship plan for Australia.
19. The Australian government promoted “Clean Feed” as a way to filter child porn. The police opposed this as the images were peer-to-peer (not websites).
20. WikiLeaks published the “Clean Feed” blacklist, which included politically contentious sites, anti-abortion sites, and euthanasia sites as well as WikiLeaks.
21. “Clean Feed” was abandoned as a direct result of WikiLeaks’ exposure of its fundamentally undemocratic political nature.
22. WikiLeaks exposed ALP Senator Mark Arbib as a protected source for the U.S. government for 4 years. Arbib was involved in an ALP coup that overthrew an elected Australian Prime Minister.
23. A 2007 WikiLeaks cable showed that the Australian government was risking the Great Barrier Reef, and secretly wavering penalties for U.S. tankers breaching laws in Torres Strait.
24. In line with WikiLeaks’ harm-minimization procedures, WikiLeaks asked the U.S. State Department to help with cable redactions. They refused.
25. Note the timing:
5/4/10 Collateral Murder video released
24/6/10 Gillard coup
25/7/10 Afghan Diaries released
20/8/10 Sex allegations surface
22/10/10 Iraq War logs released
28/11/10 Cablegate released
18 August 2010 (two days before the sex allegations) Anders Hellner, a senior policy adviser to the Swedish Foreign Policy Institute, told Swedish TV News Rapport: “The situation is escalating because an official Swedish party which is represented at the European Parliament (the Pirate Party, which had announced it would host WikiLeaks servers) is taking up what the U.S views is a very controversial role. The Americans are looking to stop this somehow.”
26. After the Afghan War Diary release, Julian visited Sweden to obtain residency and base WikiLeaks there (because they have good whistleblower laws).
27. The U.S. was aware of more WikiLeaks releases to come and wrote threatening letters. Julian warned of entrapment plans.
28. Woman AA invited Julian to speak in Sweden at a seminar about Afghanistan in mid August 2010
29. Woman AA offered Julian her flat to stay in as she was going to be away but returned early.
30. Woman SW stated she went to seminar to meet Julian & invited him to stay at her place.
31. Both women have stated to police and media that sex was consensual and non-violent.
32. Exculpatory evidence (txts 2 friends) show women had no complaints re sex till finding out about each other.
33. Evidence (100+ txts btwn AA and SW) speak of revenge, making money, and ruining Julian’s reputation by going to press.
34. AA takes SW to visit a police station, not close by, but where her friend Officer Irmeli Krans works.
35. Officer Krans stayed back hours after shift ended to interview SW.
36. Swedish police breach all their own procedures interviewing women AA & SW.
37. Police interviews with women AA & SW were not recorded (against procedure).
38. SW was so upset that police were going to allege rape, she does not sign her interview statement.
39. SW has stated she felt “railroaded” into making the complaint.
40. In Sweden, consensual, non-violent sex can be legally defined as “rape”.
41. On the same day, 1st prosecutor Maria Haljebo Kjellstrand unlawfully told the press Julian was wanted for rape.
42. Julian was not interviewed or informed. He found out in the tabloid newspaper “Expressen” that he was wanted for double rape.
43. Within hours there were millions of website hits for “Assange” + “rape” causing irreparable harm to Julian’s reputation.
44. Next day, after reviewing the file, Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne threw out the rape allegation.
45. “I consider there are no grounds 4 suspecting he has committed rape,” said Eva Finne, the Chief Prosecutor.
46. The investigation into the lesser allegations of harassment only continued.
47. Julian offered himself for interview on 30/8/10. Police promised not to unlawfully leak interview to the media again.
48. Julian’s police interview unlawfully turned up in the tabloid Expressen again the next day.
49. Julian and his witnesses’ interviews are videotaped while the women and their witnesses are not.
50. The witness list becomes unbalanced against Julian as police do not follow up interviews with his witnesses.
51. Police continue to leak file to tabloid media redacting sections favourable to Julian or unfavourable to women.
52. The interpreter in police interrogation Gun Von Krusenstjerna was not authorized by relevant authority.
53. Swedish Social Democrat politician Claus Borgstrum is appointed as lawyer for AA & SW.
54. Claus Borgstrum and partner Thomas Bodstrum run a thriving legal practice around rape cases.
55. Officer Krans, Borgstrum, Bodstrum and AA are all members of the Swedish Social Democrats Party.
56. One month after the Assange sex allegations, they all stood for election on a sexual offences reform platform.
57. Swedish judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman (retired) says: “Mr Borgstrum is a politician whose platform is associated with radical feminist activism, and he has developed a legal practice around acting for complainants in rape cases. In recent years, elements of the Social Democrats Party, including one of the complainants (AA) who is a well-known and aspiring social democrat politician, and her lawyer Mr Borgstrum and some public officials like Ms Ny, have taken the lead amending Swedish law, so as to try to make it more favourable to women. It is a fact that people like Marianne Ny and Claes Borgstrum have worked in co-operation to produce our new, more stringent sexual offences laws.”
58. Borgstrum appealed the decision to dismiss the rape investigation to prosecutor Marianne Ny.
59. Julian Assange was not informed about the appeal, so he had no opportunity to make submissions.
60. On the 1st of September 2010, Marianne Ny granted the appeal and reinstated the rape investigation.
61. “It is completely false that we are afraid of Assange and therefore didn’t want to file a complaint… He is not violent and I do not feel threatened by him,” woman AA told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet on 21st August 2010.
62. The alleged “deliberately torn” condom (submitted as evidence by AA) contained NO DNA from either AA or JA.
63. There are significant differences between the SW’s original statement and the one that was released to the media.
64. Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet’s application for access to police file was granted on Sept 1st 2010. Julian’s Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig’s applications for access to the police file (in September-November) were denied.
65. Julian remained in Sweden for 5 weeks to answer the allegations against him. Through his lawyer, Mr Hurtig, Julian made proactive attempts to arrange an interview with the Swedish prosecutor. Prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for interview before giving him permission to leave Sweden on September 15th 2010.
66. In September 22nd 2010, an interview was finally agreed to by Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny for September 29th 2010. The US Pentagon announced a 120 man team dedicated to “taking action” against WikiLeaks, ahead of the release of the Iraq War Logs and Cablegate. Julian was maintaining a low profile regarding threats to his security and could not be contacted and informed of the September 29th interview date. Julian left Sweden on September 27th 2010 for a pre-arranged business meeting with Cablegate media partner Der Spiegel. Julian didn’t “flee” Sweden. He stayed in Sweden a total of 37 days, after these allegations delayed his business overseas. He left with official Swedish permission.
67. On September 29th 2010, Julian phoned his lawyer to report that his luggage (including three laptops) had disappeared on the Stolkholm-Berlin flight. His Swedish lawyer Mr Hurtig then informed Julian (for the first time) of the 28th September interview. Julian offered to return to Sweden for an interview on the 9th or 10th of October. This was rejected because it was the weekend. Julian then offered to return to Sweden on October 11th 2010. This was rejected as “too far away”.
68. In October-November 2010, Julian was in London working on the Iraq War Logs release and preparing for Cablegate with media partners The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais, and the New York Times. The WikLeaks Iraq War Logs were released on October 23rd 2010. On October 27th, the CIA refused to either confirm or deny suggestions of plans to assassinate Julian. Julian had been staying at the Frontline Club (a London club for journalists) during much of October and November 2010. He conducted several talks during this period, including an address at the UN in Geneva.
69. In October-November 2010 Julian’s UK lawyers offered him for interview under the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) Scheme between the UK and Sweden. Swedish prosecutor Ny refused all Julian’s offers for interview by the usual MLA protocol.
70. On November 2nd 2010, Julian’s lawyers informed U.K police that he could be contacted through them for the legal process.
71. Despite refusing to interview Julian for seven weeks, Sweden was granted a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to question him (November 18th, 2010).
72. Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny also sought to have Julian held incommunicado pending a future trial.
73. An EAW is used for prosecution, not questioning. Julian’s EAW is highly irregular. “An EAW should not be used for the purposes of investigation.” – UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights, June 2011.
74. November 20th 2010 Despite being informed of Julian Assange’s whereabouts, Sweden authorized Interpol to make a PUBLIC Red Notice for him.
75. “I consider it inappropriate and disproportionate that Ms Ny sought an Interpol Arrest Warrant and EAW for Mr Assange” said expert witness (retired) Swedish judge Britta Sundberg-Weitman. The only recent example of Sweden issuing an Interpol Red Notice and an EAW for a sex offence involved a repeat offending paedophile.
76. November 26th 2010 Sweden issued an EAW for Julian (2 days before WikiLeaks started publishing Cablegate). This would have lead to Julian’s arrest within 10 days but the warrant was invalid and had to be re-issued on December 2nd 2010.
77. November 27th 2010 The U.S State Department sent an intimidating letter in reply to a letter from Julian requesting input regarding harm-minimization from Cablegate.
78. November 28th 2010 WikiLeaks commenced ppublishing the U.S. diplomatic cables (a.k.a. Cablegate).
79. WikiLeaks US cables revealed secret dealings between U.S. and Swedish officials to bypass the democratic process in Sweden. Sweden secretly agreed to allow U.S. access to large amounts of data on Swedish citizens. Swedish MP Camilla Lindberg resigned in protest, declaring: “By selling out its own people, the government has sought to curry the favour of the U.S. Little by little we continue to dismantle democracy.”
80. Karl Rove, former political adviser to U.S. President George Bush, is a political adviser to Swedish Prime Minister Fredrick Reinfeldt. Rove quit U.S. politics in disgrace after orchestrating vicious smear campaigns against political opponents. Karl Rove is also good friends with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.
81. November 29th 2010: U.S. politicians ‘declared war’ on Wikieaks:
“Assange is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency as Al Qaeda?” – Sarah Palin.
“I would look at this as a military issue, with potentially military action against him and his organization.” – Tom Shaffer, former Defence Intelligence Agency official, Fox News.
“Anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.” – Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential candidate.
82. November 30th 2010: Interpol issued a Red Notice for Julian Paul Assange to 188 countries.
83. More threats from politicians:
“Well, I think Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. … I would not feel unhappy if Assange ‘disappeared’.” – Tom Flannagan, former senior adviser to Canadian PM, November 30th 2010.
“We’re at war. I hope (US Attorney General) Eric Holder… will… get our laws in line with being at war.” – Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, November 30th 2010.
Julian Assange should be “prosecuted as a terrorist.” – Senator Rick Santorum, GOP presidential candidate, November 30th 2010.
“He should be treated as an enemy combatant. WikiLeaks should be closed down.” – Newt Gingrich, 5 December 2010.
“A dead man can’t leak stuff… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” – Bob Beckel, Fox News, December 6th 2010.
84. December 7th 2010: Obama administration pressures Paypal, Visa and Mastercard to block donations to WikiLeaks, shutting off 95% of their funds. Western Union and Bank of America followed soon afterwards. In early December 2010 Paypal also froze 60,000 euros of WikiLeaks donations held by the German charity Wau Holland Foundation.
On December 6th 2010 Julian’s Defence Fund (containing 31,000 euros) was frozen by Swiss Bank Post Finance. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and UN Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression condemned the WikiLeaks blockade.
“The financial blockade is a free speech issue,” said Trevor Timm, activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “The government, realizing they couldn’t charge WikiLeaks with a crime for publishing classified information – because all newspapers do that – decided to pressure private companies like Amazon, Visa, and MasterCard into banning WikiLeaks.”
The suppression of donations is essentially an end-run around the First Amendment, asserted Timm. “The government is not technically doing the censoring – they’re leaving the dirty work to private corporations. Mainstream newspapers like The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal print classified information all the time. It’s been happening for decades, and no one has ever been prosecuted for it.”
On January 14th 2011 the U.S.Treasury declined Senator Peter King’s request to blacklist WikiLeaks or Assange as there were no grounds to do so.
In July 2011 WikiLeaks lodged a complaint about the financial blockade with the European Commissioner for infringement of EU Anti-Trust Laws. They are still awaiting an answer.
It is estimated that since the blockade WikiLeaks has been prevented from receiving over $20 million in donations.
85. The U.S government also pressured Internet providers to terminate services to WikiLeaks. For example, on December 1st 2010, Amazon removed WikiLeaks from their storage servers. On December 2nd the DNS register serving WikiLeaks.org stopped pointing to the domain. On December 20th Apple removed an app that allowed iPhone users to search WikiLeaks cables.
86. December 5th 2010 Prosecutor Ny mislead the public by stating: “Both British and Swedish law prevent me from questioning Assange in London.” She made the same allegation in a December 3rd interview with TIME magazine.
The use of a video link is an established protocol per Swedish ruling (SC-NJA (2007) 337), which also states that it is disproportionate to issue EAW’s for questioning when a person is co-operating. The proper, proportionate, and legal means of requesting a person for questioning in UK is through the Mutual Legal Assistance Scheme. Since Julian’s UK house arrest in 2010, Swedish prosecutor Ny has rejected ALL his offers to be interviewed at Scotland Yard or the Swedish Embassy.
87. On December 7th 2010 Julian went voluntarily with his lawyer to the Kentish Town police station in London to answer the EAW. The EAW was the first document Julian received from Swedish Prosecutors in English (a translation was provided by UK police). This was also the first time Julian had been informed in writing of the specific allegations and potential charges against him.
88. The EAW and Interpol Red Notice were issued just before and executed just after Cablegate began publishing. Had Julian returned to Sweden in October/November he would have been held incommunicado in prison and we may not have seen Cablegate.
89. On December 7th 2010 Julian went into voluntary custody in the UK. He spent ten days in solitary confinement in the maximum security Wandsworth Prison. Bail of £180,000 was put up for Julian, but Sweden opposed bail and Judge Riddle refused it.
90. December 8th 2010 The Independent newspaper cited “diplomatic sources” confirming informal talks between Sweden and the US about extraditing Julian.
Michael Mukasey, a former U.S. Attorney General stated: “When one is accused of a very serious crime, it is common to hold him in respect of a lesser crime, while you assemble evidence of a second crime.” (The Guardian 7/12/10)
91. On December 14th 2010 Julian was granted bail of $374,000 (cash and sureties) and surrendered his passport. He was placed under house arrest with a nightly curfew, fitted with an electronic ankle tracking device, and ordered to report daily to the local police station. The Swedish government opposed bail and filed an appeal, so Julian went back to prison for 48 hrs till the appeal hearing on December 16th 2010. Sweden lost the appeal and Julian was released on bail till the EAW hearing, set down for January 11th 2011.
*
UK Supreme Court Agreed Statement of Facts (i.e. facts agreed by Swedish authorities): http://t.co/x62F9ah2
Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin’s brief to Australian MPs on political agenda, U.S and Sweden, entrapment: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
Lawyer Jen Robinson brief to Australian MPs on facts, timeline, players, concerns re Sweden fit up re WikiLeaks: http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
Lawyer Peter Kemp brief to Australian MPs 2/3/11 re breaches of legal and human rights, political agendas, extradition: http://wlcentral.org/node/1414
Comprehensive verifiable facts and media resources on Swedish extradition and US Extradition: http://www.justice4assange.com
OzWikiWatch, a site to help Australians contact their MPs and Senators and build a register of political support of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks: http://ozwikiwatch.blogspot.com
2012-06-20 Swedish extradition facts from Christine Assange
Julian Assange’s mother Christine recently tweeted the following facts about extraditions involving the US, the UK, Sweden, and Australia.
1. Australian PM Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbot backed new Extradition Act Amendments making it easier for U.S.A to extradite Aussies. The Greens fought it.
2. For the FIRST TIME Aussies can be now be extradited for minor offences.
3. The protection of “political” motives has been weakened. If the charge is “terrorism” then “political” cannot apply to prevent extradition.
4. The U.S.A. recently expanded its definition of “terrorist” to include peaceful protesters – “Low level terrorism”.
5. Under the new NDAA legislation, the U.S became a police state – citizens and foreigners can be arrested without warrant and indefinite detention applies.
6. In 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it legal to publish classified documents. Obama is now trying to label media who do so as terrorists.
7. Modifications to the act included changing “protection from death penalty” to “likelihood the death penalty would be carried out”.
8. Note that the U.S.A is in the top 5 countries for killing its own citizens, and the only Western country in that top 5.
9. Even Minor Offences under the new Extradition Amendments are punished with up to 12 months imprisonment.
10. The UK/US Bilateral Treaty allows the U.S.A to extradite from the UK without any prima facie case (i.e. evidence).
11. The Swedish/US Bilateral Treaty gets around safeguards of normal extradition with a fast-track “Temporary Surrender” clause.
12. The US Grand Jury convenes in secret. There are 4 prosecutors, no defence, and no judge. It can issue indictments for Extradition with no proper legal process.
13. Sweden has NEVER refused an Extradition request from the U.S.A.
14. In 2001 Sweden gave two innocent Egyptian refugees to the CIA for rendition to Egypt, where they were tortured.
15. The Swedish Justice Minister who signed off on the CIA rendition torture flight was Thomas Bodström.
16. Thomas Bodström is now the business partner of Claes Borgström, the politician/lawyer of the two Swedish women in the Assange case.
17. The Australian Greens supported a motion by Senator Scott Ludlam to protect Julian from “Temporary Surrender” to the U.S.A via Sweden. Both Labor and the Coalition opposed it.
The whole conspiracy theory seems to rely on the belief that it would be easier for the US to extradite Assange from Sweden than from England – which appears not to be correct. If anything, it would have been easier for the US to extradite from the UK.
Thank you for such a well written and informative article that allows for a very complicated situation to be understood.
There’s a general principle that witnesses give their evidence independently, whether it’s a police interview or in court. It’s not just a rule for rape cases. It’s simple good practice by the investigating police.
And, yes, I can see how frustrating it can be.
As for linking cases, different countries have different rules, but it does seem very strange.
I wish we could all just say Anna Ardin instead of Miss A and Sofia Willen instead of Miss W. Why is this not possible?
Thank you very much. Best wishes.
@Ikabot – it is just a matter of courtesy to protect the name of the women in rape-trials.
The Expressen Newspaper -that first reported on the case- writes that it is “friends of the women” that have brought it to their attention (and then they got a confirmation from the police).
The sockpuppets for slaughter have dragged out the furphy of “why don’t the amerikans just grab Assange in Britain” again I see.
The answers to that are many -faceted, but boil down to two insurmountable issues.
1) Successive UK governments are already under considerable pressure over their apparent willingness to send locals off to trial in amerika for crimes that are essentially a beat-up. eg kids who have never set foot outside the uK being sent to the US for the ‘crime’ of being inquisitive about computer security.
The government could probably withstand that in Assange’s case if it were the only problem but there is a big pachyderm in the lounge, the Guardian. The Guardian published everything that wikileaks is accused of being in breach of amerikan security law by revealing. Once Assange is taken to amerika the star chanber system of military tribunals can keep embarrassment over the Guardian and the New York Times’ role in this low by having hearings in camera and releasing slanted sound bites to a co-operative media.
There is no chance of that in britain where sleazy fishwraps delight in demeaning each other.
As soon as Assange was dragged into an english dock for an extradition hearing on the helicopter tape or the cablegate release, the english tabloids would go crazy, foaming at the mouth demanding to know why amerikan suck ass and ‘grass’ Nick Davies wasn’t in the dock beside Julian.
Guardian ‘journalist’ without ethics, Davies has even written a book which, although it seeks to disparage Julian and wikileaks, also boasts about Davies’ role in publishing the material.
No, an extradition application from england would create more problems for amerikan credibility in world affairs than the prosecution of Assange seeks to solve.
After reading Jettatura’s powerful and VERY lengthy (but never redundant or padded) list of specifics in this comments column, it’s dawning on me for the first time that we’re looking at another Dreyfuss case.
8 big problems? Let us just call them 8 failed attempts to seem impartial.
I have been pulling my hair out trying to figure out why virtually NOBODY is investigating — and reporting on — the many aspects which make it painfully obvious that this whole thing is a set up; an attack against Assange because of his efforts to reveal the secret actions and agendas of powerful corrupt people.
Thank you so much for the research you’re doing, and for writing this article.
You are a light in the dark I sincerely hope others follow your example.
Conspiracy theories won’t do. Stick to the facts. Stop making assertions and start sourcing your material. What have you claimed that is supported by evidence verifiable by your readers? What are your primary sources? Since when did you become an expert in Swedish Law?
“A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.”
What are you talking about? What “corporate attorney”? Do you even have a name?
The following comes from a briefing for Australian Members of Parliament prepared by Jennifer Robinson:
“(2) Second, it has since come to light that the policewoman who had interviewed both women and initially reported the alleged rape to the Prosecutor was a friend of the first complainant, Ms A, and had also run for election for the Social Democrats (the same party for which Ms A and her lawyer, Mr Borgstrom, have stood for election)”
http://wlcentral.org/node/1418
So to begin with you’ve got more than 100 text messages sent between Ms A, Ms W and their friends in which they mention “revenge”, making money from the allegations and ruining Assange’s reputation by going to the press.
Next, you’ve got Ms A bringing the younger girl, Ms W, along to the police station to talk to her friend the policewoman. This was a visit to find out about an HIV test, but during the conversation, Ms A’s friend the policewoman decided that this was in fact rape. The younger girl, Ms W, immediately freaked out about the charge of rape against Assange, refused to say anything else, and also refused to sign the statement she’d already given. She later stated that she felt “railroaded” by Ms A’s friend the policewoman. She tried to retract her statement but wasn’t allowed to. The statements were immediately leaked to the press. The next day, Stockholm’s Chief Prosecutor reviewed the rape case and threw it out, reducing it to harrassment. Enter Ms A’s other friend, Claus Borgstrom, a fellow politician in the same political party as she and her friend the policewoman, and also now her lawyer. Borgstrom appealed to have the charges re-instated, which they were almost immediately.
After that, you’ve got Ms A deleting evidence from Twitter.
It’s more than a little bit fishy.
This is a must-watch piece of investigative journalism about the case:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm
Considering all the rape kits that sit gathering dust in police warehouses all over the world, the case against Julian Assange is ludicrous. Women who are raped are treated like criminals by police, and in the US, it is estimated that over half of all rape cases go unreported. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates), which is sensible considering how often police tell them THEY are lying.
IMHO police are nothing more than thugs in uniform, and this whole Assange case is so obviously a set-up that the governments of Sweden, Britain and the US should be ashamed of themselves for coming up with such a stupid case. Even 911, which was clearly a false flag operation as building professionals know, was crafted better than this. (ae911truth.org)
This blows the whole case out of the water. Given that Bradley Manning has at last been heard – the Truth about all this is being revealed – the secrecy and corruption stinks!
Thanks for exposing what is being done in the name of Justice NOT!
I have some evidence that it is released from dog tapeworm stages when these are being killed by your immune system. It is probably the same tapeworm stage as releases the Adenovirus. https://www.rebelmouse.com/ultimateherpesprotocols/
Hello there, You have done a fantastic job. I will definitely digg it and personally suggest to my
friends. I am confident they’ll be benefited from this website.