AuthorTopic: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread  (Read 14071 times)

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Julian Assange: John Pilger Updates
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2015, 01:35:10 PM »
Assange: the untold story of an epic struggle for justice

John Pilger
31 July 2015



The siege of Knightsbridge is both an emblem of gross injustice and a gruelling farce. For three years, a police cordon around the Ecuadorean embassy in London has served no purpose other than to flaunt the power of the state. It has cost £12 million. The quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His "crime" is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war.

The persecution of Julian Assange is about to flare again as it enters a dangerous stage. From August 20, three quarters of the Swedish prosecutor's case against Assange regarding sexual misconduct in 2010 will disappear as the statute of limitations expires. At the same time Washington's obsession with Assange and WikiLeaks has intensified. Indeed, it is vindictive American power that offers the greatest threat - as Chelsea Manning and those still held in Guantanamo can attest.

The Americans are pursuing Assange because WikiLeaks exposed their epic crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they covered up, and their contempt for sovereignty and international law, as demonstrated vividly in their leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks continues to expose criminal activity by the US, having just published top secret US intercepts - US spies' reports detailing private phone calls of the presidents of France and Germany, and other senior officials, relating to internal European political and economic affairs.

None of this is illegal under the US 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 campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama boasted on its website that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers in his first term than all other US presidents combined. Before Chelsea Manning had even received a trial, Obama had pronounced the whistleblower guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to 35 years in prison, having been tortured during his long pre-trial detention.

Few doubt that should the US get their hands on Assange, a similar fate awaits him. Threats of the capture and assassination of Assange became the currency of the political extremes in the US following Vice-President Joe Biden's preposterous slur that the WikiLeaks founder was a "cyber-terrorist". Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden.

According to documents released by Snowden, Assange is on a "Manhunt target list". Washington's bid to get him, say Australian diplomatic cables, is "unprecedented in scale and nature". In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has spent five years attempting to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers.

Faced with this constitutional hurdle, the US 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 Espionage Act has life in prison and death penalty provisions.

Assange's ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. In March, 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. Rosthstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security". Such is the "justice" of a kangaroo court.

The supporting act in this grim farce is Sweden, played by the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny refused to comply with a routine European procedure routine that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case. For four and a half years, Ny has never properly explained why she has refused to 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 US 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 US.

Contrary to its 1960s 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 in WikiLeaks cables. In the summer of 2010, Assange had flown to Sweden to talk about WikiLeaks revelations of the war in Afghanistan - in which Sweden had forces under US command.

"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 facing 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."

Why hasn't the Swedish prosecutor resolved the Assange case? Many in the legal community in Sweden believe her behaviour inexplicable. Once implacably hostile to Assange, the Swedish press has published headlines such as: "Go to London, for God's sake."

Why hasn't she? More to the point, why won't she allow the Swedish court access to hundreds of SMS messages that the police extracted from the phone of one of the two women involved in the misconduct allegations? Why won't she hand them over to Assange's Swedish lawyers? She says she is not legally required to do so until a formal charge is laid and she has questioned him. Then, why doesn't she question him? And if she did question him, the conditions she would demand of him and his lawyers - that they could not challenge her - would make injustice a near certainty.

On a point of law, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided Ny can continue to obstruct on the vital issue of the SMS messages. This will now go to the European Court of Human Rights. What Ny fears is that the SMS messages will destroy her case against Assange. One of the 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 have denied they were raped and one of them has since tweeted, "I have not been raped." That they were manipulated by police and their wishes ignored is evident - whatever their lawyers might say now. Certainly, they are victims of a saga which blights the reputation of Sweden itself.

For Assange, his only trial has been trial by media. On August 20, 2010, the Swedish police opened a "rape investigation" and immediately - and unlawfully - told the Stockholm tabloids that there was a warrant for Assange's arrest for the "rape of two women". This was the news that went round the world.

In Washington, a smiling US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told reporters that the arrest "sounds like good news to me". Twitter accounts associated with the Pentagon described Assange as a "rapist" and a "fugitive".

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." The file was closed.

Enter Claes Borgstrom, a high profile politician 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 the city of 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 all 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. Borgstrom was asked by a Swedish reporter why the case was proceeding when it had already been dismissed, citing one of the women as saying she had not been raped. He replied, "Ah, but she is not a lawyer." Assange's Australian barrister, James Catlin, responded, "This is a laughing stock... it's as if they make it up as they go along."

On the day Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST -- publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers." Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him.

For five weeks, Assange waited in Sweden for the new 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. His lawyer in Stockholm asked Ny if she had any objection to his leaving the country. She said he was free to leave.

Inexplicably, as soon as he left Sweden - at the height of media and public interest in the WikiLeaks disclosures - Ny issued a European Arrest Warrant and an Interpol "red alert" normally used for terrorists and dangerous criminals. Put out in five languages around the world, it ensured a media frenzy.

Assange attended a police station in London, was 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 by Ny in London, pointing out that she had given him permission to leave Sweden. They suggested a special facility at Scotland Yard commonly used for that purpose. She refused.

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?"

This question remained unanswered as Ny deployed the European Arrest Warrant, a draconian and now discredited  product of the "war on terror" supposedly designed to catch terrorists and organised criminals. The EAW had abolished the obligation on a petitioning state to provide any evidence of a crime. More than a thousand EAWs are issued each month; only a few have anything to do with potential "terror" charges. Most are issued for trivial offences, such as overdue bank charges and fines. Many of those extradited face months in prison without charge. There have been a number of shocking miscarriages of justice, of which British judges have been highly critical.

The Assange case finally reached the UK Supreme Court in May 2012. In a judgement that upheld the EAW - whose rigid demands had left the courts almost no room for manoeuvre - the judges found that European prosecutors could issue extradition warrants in the UK without any judicial oversight, even though Parliament intended otherwise. They made clear that Parliament had been "misled" by the Blair government. The court was split, 5-2, and consequently found against Assange.

However, the Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, made one mistake. He applied the Vienna Convention on treaty interpretation, allowing for state practice to override the letter of the law. As Assange's barrister, Dinah Rose QC, pointed out, this did not apply to the EAW.

The Supreme Court only recognised this crucial error when it dealt with another appeal against the EAW in November 2013. The Assange decision had been wrong, but it was too late to go back. With extradition imminent, the Swedish prosecutor told Assange's lawyers that Assange, once in Sweden, would be immediately placed in one of Sweden's infamous remand prisons.

Assange's choice was stark: extradition to a country that had refused to say whether or not it would send him on to the US, or to seek what seemed his last opportunity for refuge and safety. Supported by most of Latin America, the courageous government of Ecuador granted him refugee status on the basis of documented evidence and legal advice that he faced the prospect of cruel and unusual punishment in the US; 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 prime minister Julia Gillard had even threatened to take away his passport.

Gareth Peirce, the renowned human rights lawyer 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.

Meanwhile, the prospect of a grotesque miscarriage of justice was drowned in a vituperative campaign against the WikiLeaks founder. Deeply personal, petty, vicious and inhuman attacks were 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 US threat to Assange was a threat to all journalists, to freedom of speech, was lost in the sordid and the ambitious.

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 editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published, "one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years". It became part of his 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".

The injustice meted out to Assange is one of the reasons Parliament reformed the Extradition Act to prevent the misuse of the EAW. The draconian catch-all used against him could not happen now; charges would have to be brought and "questioning" would be insufficient grounds for extradition. "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, the change in the UK law in 2014 mean that Assange would have won his case and he would not have been forced to take refuge.

Ecuador's decision to protect Assange in 2012 bloomed into a major international affair. 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 recognize the legitimacy of Ecuador's decision. Ignoring international law, the Cameron government refused to grant Assange safe passage to Ecuador. Instead, Ecuador's embassy was placed under siege and its government abused with a series of ultimatums. When William Hague's Foreign Office threatened to violate the 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, Julian Assange has been confined to a small room under Ecuador's protection, without sunlight or space to exercise, surrounded by police under orders to arrest him on sight. For three years, Ecuador has made clear to the Swedish prosecutor that Assange is available to be questioned in the London embassy, and for three years she has remained intransigent. In the same period Sweden has questioned forty-four people in the UK in connection with police investigations. Her role, and that of the Swedish state, is demonstrably political; and for Ny, facing retirement in two years, she must "win".

In despair, Assange has challenged the arrest warrant in the Swedish courts. His lawyers have cited rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that he has been under arbitrary, indefinite detention and that he had been a virtual prisoner for longer than any actual prison sentence he might face. The Court of Appeal judge agreed with Assange's lawyers: the prosecutor had indeed breached her duty by keeping the case suspended for years. Another judge issued a rebuke to the prosecutor. And yet she defied the court.

Last December, Assange took his case to the Swedish Supreme Court, which ordered Marianne Ny's boss - the Prosecutor General of Sweden Anders Perklev - to explain. The next day, Ny announced, without explanation, that she had changed her mind and would now question Assange in London.

In his submission to the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor General made some important concessions: he argued that the coercion of Assange had been "intrusive" and that that the period in the embassy has been a "great strain" on him. He even conceded that if the matter had ever come to prosecution, trial, conviction and serving a sentence in Sweden, Julian Assange would have left Sweden long ago.

In a split decision, one Supreme Court judge argued that the arrest warrant should have been revoked. The majority of the judges ruled that, since the prosecutor had now said she would go to London, Assange's arguments had become "moot". But the Court ruled that it would have found against the prosecutor if she had not suddenly changed her mind. Justice by caprice. 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 that she be replaced.

Having said she would go to London in June, Ny did not go, but sent a deputy, knowing that the questioning would not be legal under these circumstances, especially as Sweden had not bothered to get Ecuador's approval for the meeting. At the same time, her office tipped off the Swedish tabloid newspaper Expressen, which sent its London correspondent to wait outside Ecuador's embassy for "news". The news was that Ny was cancelling the appointment and blaming Ecuador for the confusion and by implication an "uncooperative" Assange - when the opposite was true.

As the statute of limitations date approaches - 20 August 2015 - another chapter in this hideous story will doubtless unfold, with Marianne Ny pulling yet another rabbit out of her hat and the commissars and prosecutors in Washington the beneficiaries. Perhaps none of this is surprising. In 2008, a war on WikiLeaks and on Julian Assange was foretold in a secret Pentagon document prepared by the "Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch". It described a detailed plan to destroy the feeling of "trust" which is WikiLeaks' "centre of gravity". This would be achieved with threats of "exposure [and] criminal prosecution". Silencing and criminalising such a rare source of truth-telling was the aim, smear the method. While this scandal continues the very notion of justice is diminished, along with the reputation of Sweden, and the shadow of America's menace touches us all.

For important additional information, click on the following links:

http://justice4assange.com/extraditing-assange.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/assange-could-face-espionage-trial-in-us-2154107.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ImXe_EQhUI

https://justice4assange.com/Timeline.html

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/wikileaks_doj_05192014.pdf

https://wikileaks.org/59-International-Organizations.html

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1202703/doj-letter-re-wikileaks-6-19-14.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/23/julian-assange-ecuador-and-sweden-in-tense-standoff-over-interview?CMP=twt_gu

http://assangeinsweden.com/2015/03/17/the-prosecutor-in-the-assange-case-should-be-replaced

https://justice4assange.com/Prosecutor-cancels-Assange-meeting.html
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Sweden May Drop Case, But Risk Remains Of Arrest of Julian Assange
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2015, 05:55:15 AM »
The Swedes are capitulating, but not the NSA.

Julian will need to stay holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy a while longer.

RE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/sweden-may-drop-case-against-julian-assange-but-risk-remains-of-arrest-and-extradition-to-us/5468940
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Assange to Accept Arrest if UN Panel Rules Against Him
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2016, 03:16:57 AM »
JA must be pretty sure of the outcome here being in his favor.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/02/03/world/europe/ap-eu-wikileaks-assange.html?_r=0
Assange to Accept Arrest if UN Panel Rules Against Him

LONDON — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he will accept arrest by British police if a U.N. working group investigating his claims decides that the three years he has spent inside the Ecuadorean Embassy doesn't amount to illegal detention.

Writing on WikiLeaks' Twitter account Wednesday night, Assange said if the U.N. panel finds he has lost his case against the United Kingdom and Sweden then he will turn himself in to police at noon on Friday.

"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," Assange added.

The U.N. panel based in Geneva doesn't have any binding authority to impose its findings on the British or Swedish judicial authorities, which have been involved in years of legal wrangling involving Assange.

Its decision could, however, influence how aggressively Swedish prosecutors pursue Assange for questioning about allegations of sexual misconduct.

Assange voluntarily took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden where two women have accused him of sexual assault.

He has said his main legal concern is a possible indictment against him in the U.S. on charges related to WikiLeaks' release of government cables.

He has expressed the fear that British and Swedish authorities plan to send him to the U.S. to face charges against him there.

British police guarded the Ecuadorean Embassy for several years but removed the round-the-clock security cordon in October.

Police said they would still seek to arrest Assange if he leaves the embassy because of a valid arrest warrant. Police said both overt and covert means would be used to keep track of Assange.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter- John Pilger
« Reply #33 on: February 06, 2016, 07:15:36 AM »
Still not free, but getting closer.

RE

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/freeing-julian-assange-the-final-chapter/

February 5, 2016
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter

by John Pilger


One of the epic miscarriages of justice of our time is unravelling. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention — — the international tribunal that adjudicates and decides whether governments comply with their human rights obligations — has ruled that Julian Assange has been detained unlawfully by Britain and Sweden.

After five years of fighting to clear his name — having been smeared relentlessly yet charged with no crime — Assange is closer to justice and vindication, and perhaps freedom, than at any time since he was arrested and held in London under a European Extradition Warrant, itself now discredited by Parliament.

The UN Working Group bases its judgements on the European Convention on Human Rights and three other treaties that are binding on all its signatories. Both Britain and Sweden participated in the 16-month long UN investigation and submitted evidence and defended their position before the tribunal. It would fly contemptuously in the face of international law if they did not comply with the judgment and allow Assange to leave the refuge granted him by the Ecuadorean government in its London embassy.

In previous, celebrated 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 have given support to the tribunal. The difference now is that Assange’s persecution and confinement endures in the heart of London.

The Assange case has never been primarily about allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden —  where the Stockholm Chief Prosecutor, Eva Finne,  dismissed the case, saying, “I don’t believe there is any reason to suspect that he has committed rape”, and one of the women involved accused the police of fabricating evidence and “railroading” her, protesting she “did not want to accuse JA of anything” — and a second prosecutor mysteriously re-opened the case after political intervention, then stalled it.

The Assange case is rooted across the Atlantic in Pentagon-dominated Washington, obsessed with pursuing and prosecuting whistleblowers, especially Assange for having exposed, in WikiLeaks, US capital crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq: the wholesale killing of civilians and a contempt for sovereignty and international law.  None of this truth-telling is illegal under the US 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”.

Obama, the betrayer,  has since prosecuted more whistleblowers than all the US presidents combined. The courageous Chelsea Manning is serving 35 years in prison, having been tortured during her long pre-trial detention.

The prospect of a similar fate has hung over Assange like a Damocles sword. According to documents released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. Vice-President Joe Biden has called him a “cyber terrorist”. In Alexandra, Virginia, a secret grand jury has attempted to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted in a court. Even though he is not an American, he is currently being fitted up with an espionage law dredged up from a century ago when it was used to silence conscientious objectors during the First World War; the Espionage Act has provisions of both life imprisonment and the death penalty.

Assange’s ability to defend himself in this Kafkaesque world has been handicapped by the US declaring his case a state secret. A federal court has blocked the release of all information about what is known as the “national security” investigation of WikiLeaks.

The supporting act in this charade has been played by the second Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny. Until recently, Ny had refused to comply with a routine European procedure that required her to travel to London to question Assange and so advance the case that James Catlin, one of Assange’s barristers, called “a laughing stock … it’s as if they make it up as they go along”. Indeed, even before Assange had left Sweden for London in 2010, Marianne Ny made no attempt to question him. In the years since, she has never properly explained, even to her own judicial authorities, why she has not completed the case she so enthusiastically re-ignited — just as the she has never explained why she has refused to give Assange a guarantee that he will not be extradited on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington. In 2010, the Independent in London revealed that the two governments had discussed Assange’s onward extradition.

Then there is tiny, brave Ecuador. One of the reasons Ecuador granted Julian Assange political asylum was that his own government, in Australia, had offered him none of the help to which he had a legal right and so abandoned him. Australia’s collusion with the United States against its own citizen is evident in leaked documents; no more faithful vassals has America than the obeisant politicians of the Antipodes.

Four years ago, in Sydney, I spent several hours with the Liberal Member of the 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 is now the Prime Minister of Australia and, as I write, is attending an international conference on Syria hosted the Cameron government — about 15 minutes’ cab ride from the room that Julian Assange has occupied for three and a half years in the small Ecuadorean embassy just along from Harrod’s. The Syria connection is relevant if unreported; it was WikiLeaks that revealed that the United States had long planned to overthrow the Assad government in Syria. Today, as he meets and greets, Prime Minister Turnbull has an opportunity to contribute a modicum of purpose and truth to the conference by speaking up for his unjustly imprisoned compatriot, for whom he showed such concern when we met.  All he need do is quote the judgement of the UN Working Party on Arbitrary Detention. Will he reclaim this shred of Australia’s reputation in the decent world?

What is certain is that the decent world owes much to Julian Assange. He told us how indecent power behaves in secret, how it lies and manipulates and engages in great acts of violence, sustaining wars that kill and maim and turn millions into the refugees now in the news. Telling us this truth alone earns Assange his freedom, whereas justice is his right.

John Pilger can be reached through his website: www.johnpilger.com
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Julian Assange talks to RT EXCLUSIVE
« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2016, 08:00:51 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/GU2-xBVwkOs" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/GU2-xBVwkOs</a>
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Julian Assange Special: Does Wikileaks have the SMOKING GUN on Killary?
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2016, 07:21:22 PM »
Looks like JA and Vlad the Impaler have formed an Alliance.  Hopefully Vlad has stationed a few KGB Cleaners around the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  ::)  It is Spy vs Spy time now.


RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/h2FfrNGcO3g" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/h2FfrNGcO3g</a>
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
A Break in the Julian Assange Impasse?
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2016, 02:46:46 AM »
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/12/world/europe/julian-assange-sweden-ecuador.html?_r=0
'
 Europe
Julian Assange to Be Questioned by Sweden Over Rape Claim, Ecuador Says

By STEVEN ERLANGERAUG. 11, 2016


Julian Assange, shown in February, was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012 after his appeal against extradition to Sweden was denied, and he has been confined to its London embassy ever since. Credit Peter Nicholls/Reuters

LONDON — Ecuador and Sweden have agreed to allow Julian Assange to be questioned by Swedish prosecutors inside the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, in a possible breakthrough to a four-year impasse, Ecuador said on Thursday, but no date for the interview was announced.

The Ecuadorean attorney general delivered a document agreeing to a request by the Swedish prosecutor to question Mr. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is wanted by Sweden for questioning to respond to allegations of rape made against him, a charge he denies.

Mr. Assange was granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012 after his appeal against extradition to Sweden was denied, and he has been confined to the embassy ever since.

He says he fears that if he is sent to Sweden, he will then be shipped to the United States, where he could be charged with espionage offenses.

WikiLeaks has published damaging and confidential information from the United States and many other governments, and although there is no open indictment against Mr. Assange in Washington, he and his organization are the subject of an investigation.

Mr. Assange has previously offered to be questioned inside the embassy, but prosecutors had insisted until last year that he be interviewed in Sweden.
Today’s Headlines: European Morning

Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the European morning.

Mr. Assange’s lawyers in Sweden recently made a new appeal to drop the arrest warrant against him, citing the “passivity” of the Swedish prosecutor in trying to question him.

Mr. Assange is sought for questioning to see whether he should be charged with “minor rape” after an episode in 2010 in Sweden. Earlier allegations of sexual abuse were dropped after the statute of limitations expired.

A statement issued in Ecuador said, “In the coming weeks, a date will be established for the proceedings to be held at the embassy of Ecuador in the United Kingdom.”

The statement said that Ecuador and Sweden had signed “an agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters” last December, “which provides the legal framework for the questioning.”

In February, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the United Nations ruled that Mr. Assange was being arbitrarily detained and should be released freely and with compensation for the violation of his rights. The opinion was nonbinding and has been rejected by Britain and Sweden.

Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have recently attracted attention after the distribution of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and his statements criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee.

“Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry reiterates its commitment to the asylum granted to Julian Assange in August 2012,” the statement from Ecuador said, “and reaffirms that the protection afforded by the Ecuadorean state shall continue while the circumstances persist that led to the granting of asylum, namely fears of political persecution.”

Follow Steven Erlanger on Twitter @StevenErlanger.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16113
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2016, 05:50:04 AM »
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE


I was  thinking exactly the same thing, before I even read what you wrote.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2016, 11:49:20 AM »
IMHO, JA is as good as dead the minute he walks out the door of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.  It' amazing he has lasted this long.

RE


I was  thinking exactly the same thing, before I even read what you wrote.

His only chance is if Vlad the Impaler sends a squad of KGB Agents to escort him to a chartered jet waiting at Heathrow heading straight for Moscow.  He can join Edward Snowden there.

RE
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Re: Wikileaks Updates-Julian Assange Thread
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2016, 07:59:43 PM »
Can't wait to see the vids of this "interview".  ::)

RE

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pEuK8i39C3w" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pEuK8i39C3w</a>
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2016, 08:08:19 AM »
JA is obviously dependent on the Ecuadorian Embassy for his connection to the internet, including to his Twitter accounts.

The problem is that Ecuador is running short of money, and they don't print their own, they use the FSoA Dollar.  They have to be able to raise money on the Bond Market.

Ecuador can Save Face by still providing Asylum for JA, but with his internet cut off he is essentially neutered (and would probably go stir crazy also).

At this point IMHO I think JAs best chance is to voluntarily turn himself in to the Swedish Goobermint and face the one rape allegation still open.  In the process of transfer or during the trial in Sweden, perhaps the KGB can whisk him off to Moscow to join Edward Snowden in exile there.

To be sure, his days left leaking emails from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London are numbered.

RE

Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet

By STEVEN ERLANGEROCT. 18, 2016


Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, emerging onto the balcony of the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to make a statement in February. Credit Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images

LONDON — The strange tale of Julian Assange and Ecuador became a little odder on Tuesday, as the Ecuadorean government restated its commitment to providing Mr. Assange political asylum at its embassy in London but refused to even acknowledge the charge by WikiLeaks that it had cut off his access to the internet.

WikiLeaks, founded by Mr. Assange and known for its frequent release of confidential information about governments as well as private organizations and individuals, said on Twitter on Monday that Ecuador had severed Mr. Assange’s internet access Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Assange, who sought refuge in the embassy four years ago and is wanted for questioning by the Swedish authorities, lost internet access shortly after WikiLeaks published information about speeches that Hillary Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs, his organization said.

Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks have recently posted emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and from John D. Podesta, a senior official in Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, some of which have been highly embarrassing to the Democrats. WikiLeaks published more hacked emails from Mr. Podesta on Monday.

Although Mr. Assange has said that he did not know the source of the WikiLeaks material, the United States government has suggested that the hacking was the work of Russia and intended to help Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Donald J. Trump.

The president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, is a man of the left, and he recently told the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT that he would personally support Mrs. Clinton.

At the same time, he suggested in the RT interview that a victory by Mr. Trump, who has made no secret of his admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, would be good for Latin America because it would, paradoxically, bolster left-wing parties.
Timeline
Julian Assange: A Legal History

Here are key points in his case since WikiLeaks burst onto the digital scene in 2010.
OPEN Timeline

“I sincerely believe that it would be better for Latin America if Trump won,” Mr. Correa said. “When did progressive governments come to power in Latin America? During the Bush administration. His primitive policies were rejected so much that it caused reaction in Latin America. Trump would do the same.”

Questions to the Ecuadorean Embassy on Tuesday were met with a polite reference to the mission’s website and to a brief statement.

“In view of recent speculations, the government of Ecuador reaffirms the validity of the asylum granted four years ago to Julian Assange,” the statement said. “We also ratify that the protection given by the Ecuadorean state will continue while the circumstances that led to the granting of asylum remain.”

There was no mention of internet access.

Mr. Assange is the subject of an arrest warrant in Sweden, which wanted to question him about allegations of rape and sexual abuse dating to 2010, to decide whether or not to bring charges.

Mr. Assange, saying that he feared extradition to the United States on espionage charges stemming from the publication by WikiLeaks of secret documents given to the website by Chelsea Manning, broke bail and took refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in June 2012. He has been in the tiny embassy since.

Given the statute of limitations, the one allegation Mr. Assange still faces in Sweden is one of rape. He is wanted for questioning but has not been charged.

After long negotiations, he was scheduled to be questioned on Monday by Swedish prosecutors in the presence of an Ecuadorean prosecutor. But Ecuador, at Mr. Assange’s request, postponed that session until Nov. 14, after the American presidential election.

There is no public indictment in the United States of Mr. Assange; if Sweden chooses not to press charges, he would presumably be free to leave the embassy without risk of arrest.
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2016, 04:33:08 AM »
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/18/the-cyber-war-on-wikileaks/

October 18, 2016
The Cyber-War on Wikileaks

by Srećko Horvat


Srećko Horvat & Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London – Sunshine Press Publications.

When the ruling class is in panic, their first reaction is to hide the panic.

They react out of cynicism: when their masks are revealed, instead of running around naked, they usually point the finger at the mask they wear. These days the whole world could witness a postmodern version of the infamous quote “Let them eat cake”, attributed to Marie-Antoinette, queen of France during the French Revolution.

As a reaction to WikiLeaks publishing his emails, John Podesta, the man behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign, posted a photo of a dinner preparation, saying “I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy”.

A similar version of vulgar cynicism emerged earlier this month when Hillary Clinton reacted to the claim that she reportedly wanted to “drone” WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (“Can’t we just drone this guy?”) when she was the US Secretary of State. Instead of denying her comments, Clinton said that she doesn’t recall any such joke, “It would have been a joke if it had been said, but I don’t recall that”.

One doesn’t have to read between the lines to understand that if Hillary Clinton had said that, she would have considered it a joke. But when emperors joke, it usually has dire consequences for those who are the objects of their “humor.”

Cyber-war Not with Russia…but WikiLeaks

During the last few months I have visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London several times and each time I came out of the Embassy, where he is spending his fifth year in political asylum under legitimate fear he might be extradited to the US, my thought was the following one: although he lives, without his family, in a postmodern version of solitary confinement (even prisoners are allowed to walk for up to one hour a day), although he has no access to fresh air or sunlight for more than 2000 days, although the UK government recently denied him safe passage to a hospital for an MRI scan, if his access to the internet would be cut off this would be the most severe attack on his physical and mental freedom.

The last time I saw him, which was only two weeks ago, he expressed the fear that, because he had already published leaks concerning US elections and with more to come, the US might find various ways to silence him, including pressuring Ecuador or even shutting down the internet.

What seemed a distant possibility only two weeks ago, soon became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When the Obama administration recently announced that it is, as Biden said, planing an “unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia”, the first victim was not Putin, but precisely Julian Assange whose internet was cut off just a day after Biden’s self-contradictory proclamation.

No wonder Edward Snowden reacted immediately by saying that “nobody told Joe Biden what ‘covert operation’ means.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, a covert operation is “an operation that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor.”

It is no secret anymore that the Ecuadorian government has come under extreme pressure since Assange leaked the Democratic National Committee email database. We don’t know yet whether the US pressured Ecuador to shut down the internet, but it is clear that the present US government and the government to come is fighting a war with WikiLeaks which is all but “covert”. Is it really a coincidence that Julian Assange’s internet access was cut off shortly after publication of Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches?

If at the beginning we still had a “soft” version of postmodern McCarthyism, with Hillary calling everyone opposed to her campaign a Russian spy (not only Assange, but also Donald Trump and Jill Stein), then with Obama’s recent intervention it became more serious.

With Obama’s threat of a cyber-war, the “soft” McCarthyism didn’t only acquire geopolitical significance, but at the same time a new mask was revealed: Obama is obviously trying to cement the public debate and make the Russian threat “real”, or at least to use it as a weapon in order to help Clinton to get elected. Moreover, this new twist in something that has already become much more than only US elections (US elections are never only US elections!), shows not only how Obama is ready to strengthen Hillary’s campaign, but it also reveals that a cyber war is already in the making.

It is not a cyber war with Russia, but with WikiLeaks.

And it is not the first time.

What would Clausewitz say?

In 2010, when the Collateral Murder video was published, the Afghan and Iraq war logs were released, and we witnessed one of the most sinister attacks on freedom of speech in recent history. VISA, Mastercard, Diners, American Express and Paypal imposed a banking blockade on WikiLeaks, although WikiLeaks had not been charged with any crime at either state, federal or international level. So if the US government successfully convinced payment companies representing more than 97% of the global market to shut down an independent publisher, why wouldn’t they pressure Ecuador or any other state or company to cut off the internet?

The US is not only rhetorically trying to “get” Assange (it is worth to check out the Assassinate Assange video for evidence of the verbal masturbation of US officials), he poses a serious threat to the major elite factions in the US to remain in power. No wonder panic is rising in the US, which is now going even so far that a 16-year-old boy in Britain has been arrested on criminal charges related to the alleged hacking of email accounts used by CIA director John Brennan, which WikiLeaks published in October 2016.

What WikiLeaks obviously successfully challenged–and maybe one day (“history is written by the victors”, remember?) it will be learned in military strategy– is what the Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz would call the “centre of gravity” (Schwerpunkt), which is the “central feature of the enemy’s power”.

Instead of speaking about the Russians, we should start speaking about the Schwerpunkt of the actual leaks, their real essence. Just take the following quotes by Hillary Clinton exposed by WikiLeaks, which reveal her true nature and the politics behind her campaign: “We are going to ring China with missile defence”, “I want to defend fracking” and climate change environmentalists “should get a life”, “you need both a public and a private position”, “my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”.

What WikiLeaks has shown is not only that Hillary is a hawkish war-monger, first it was Libya (over 1,700 of the 33,000 Clinton emails published by WikiLeaks reference Libya), then it was Syria (at a Goldman Sachs conference she explicitly stated she would like to intervene in Syria), tomorrow it will be another war.

It is now clear – and this is the real “centre of gravity” where we should focus our attention – that the future Clinton cabinet may already been filled with Wall Street people like Obama’s was. No wonder WikiLeaks revelations create utter panic not only in the Democratic Party itself but also the Obama administration.

One question remains, isn’t WikiLeaks, by leaking all these dirty secrets, influencing the US elections? Yes, it certainly is, but the current criticism misses its point: isn’t the very point of organisations such as WikiLeaks to publish the material they have and to influence public opinion?

The question should finally be turned around: isn’t the US mainstream media the one influencing the US elections? And isn’t Obama, by announcing a cyber-war with Russia, influencing the elections?

WikiLeaks is not only influencing the US elections, but transforming the US elections – as they should have been from the very beginning – into a global debate with serious geopolitical consequences at stake. What WikiLeaks is doing is revealing this brutal fight for power, but, as the old saying goes, “when a wise man points at the Moon, the idiot looks at the finger”. Instead of looking at the finger pointing to Russia, we should take a look at the leaks themselves.

If democracy and transparency means anything today, we should say: let them leak!
Join the debate on Facebook

Srećko Horvat is a philosopher and activist. He is co-author, with Slavoj Žižek, of What Does Europe Want? (Columbia University Press, 2014) and author of The Radicality of Love (Polity Press, 2015). Together with Yanis Varoufakis he co-created the movement DiEM 25. https://diem25.org/
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Master Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 12070
    • View Profile
Re: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2016, 06:59:34 AM »
Mr Horvat's article is most welcome but does not go  far enough in describing the pain and misery this hero is enduring. While briefly mentioned, Mr Assange is in severe pain and needs an MRI to diagnose the problem. This has been authenticated by a UN task force which has written a scathing article and condemnation of the treatment Julian is receiving, labeling it TORTURE. Medical treatment is allowed for the most heinous of criminals, murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, rapists, but denied a hero whose crime is the telling of what the lumps of shit who rule over us are really are and what they think about us.

Your a total disgrace England. You should know better, didn't Gandhi teach you anything? You went berserk when George the imbecile visited and shook London to it's core, yet you let this kid undergo torture in your country. You Suck you fucking has been nation.

You blew it Ecuador, had to ruin all the good with one dastardly deed. Couldn't stand tall when it counted.

You fucking Swedes and those strumpets you are using to torture Julian, your swill as well.

Australia, When are you lice going to do something for your fellow countryman?

As to my country. The beacon of light and freedom for the world. The land of free speech and justice. One has only to look at Chelsea Manning's reward for whistle blowing and showing films of soldiers laughing and jeering, shouting with glee as they watched the "Collateral Damage" on innocent civilians of their actions. Our other whistle blower is "On The Lamb" in Russia.

There was a Fourth Estate once to admonish, but they sold their souls to the devil, and only exist in microscopic fragments on the net.


Then there's the rest of us, who sit on our ass and do nothing like me. We should all be on a plane to London to protest in front of that embassy, tens of millions of us.  A Mass Liberation Army, with soldiers from every country on Earth, freeing our hero from his imprisonment by the elitists who lord over us with disdain. 

                                                     


Online RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 34216
    • View Profile
Assange feels "sorry" for Killary as a person
« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2016, 06:29:31 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhWztU3Xcmw" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhWztU3Xcmw</a>
SAVE AS MANY AS YOU CAN

Offline Eddie

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 16113
    • View Profile
Re: The Cyber-War on Wikileaks
« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2016, 10:03:12 AM »
Mr Horvat's article is most welcome but does not go  far enough in describing the pain and misery this hero is enduring. While briefly mentioned, Mr Assange is in severe pain and needs an MRI to diagnose the problem. This has been authenticated by a UN task force which has written a scathing article and condemnation of the treatment Julian is receiving, labeling it TORTURE. Medical treatment is allowed for the most heinous of criminals, murderers, child molesters, drug dealers, rapists, but denied a hero whose crime is the telling of what the lumps of shit who rule over us are really are and what they think about us.

Your a total disgrace England. You should know better, didn't Gandhi teach you anything? You went berserk when George the imbecile visited and shook London to it's core, yet you let this kid undergo torture in your country. You Suck you fucking has been nation.

You blew it Ecuador, had to ruin all the good with one dastardly deed. Couldn't stand tall when it counted.

You fucking Swedes and those strumpets you are using to torture Julian, your swill as well.

Australia, When are you lice going to do something for your fellow countryman?

As to my country. The beacon of light and freedom for the world. The land of free speech and justice. One has only to look at Chelsea Manning's reward for whistle blowing and showing films of soldiers laughing and jeering, shouting with glee as they watched the "Collateral Damage" on innocent civilians of their actions. Our other whistle blower is "On The Lamb" in Russia.

There was a Fourth Estate once to admonish, but they sold their souls to the devil, and only exist in microscopic fragments on the net.


Then there's the rest of us, who sit on our ass and do nothing like me. We should all be on a plane to London to protest in front of that embassy, tens of millions of us.  A Mass Liberation Army, with soldiers from every country on Earth, freeing our hero from his imprisonment by the elitists who lord over us with disdain. 

                                                     

I'm in agreement with you here.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
790 Views
Last post October 17, 2016, 04:42:01 PM
by Palloy
0 Replies
187 Views
Last post December 20, 2017, 11:16:39 AM
by Eddie
1 Replies
184 Views
Last post March 31, 2018, 02:56:03 PM
by Surly1