(edit title) Is Swedish Government Out To Destroy Assange? Or Is It Just A Diversion To Help Him Out? Options

[*Trowbridge H. Ford*]

Now that the problems of Julian Assange and Wilileaks are entering a new phase where there will be a final solution to whether he is extradicted back here - though this will take even more time if he appeals it to the European Court of Human Rights - shouldn't we have a general discussion about it all?

While most people think that it is a sinister plot, where the Swedish authorities are complict in wanting to really get him - ultimately sending him to the States to face trial for espionage, and possible execution, I suspect that it is really to get him off the hook for having outed the leakers of the Afghan File, the covert operations where the details were leaked by British GCHQ operators Gareth Williams and Gudrun Loftus who were killed for having done so when threatening to take their secret information further afield, especially to Putin's Moscow.

The failure to investigate their murders, and the dragging out of Assange's and Wikileaks' problems are too coincidental, and delayed resolving not to be connected. British authorities are still delaying the inquest over Williams clear murder while the press is rampant with stories about it trying to get Assange when there is no clear connection between him and Bradley Manning, no jurisdiction for the US to try Assange, an Australian, as an American spy, no serious basis for thinking that he will be convicted of rape here, resulting in no chance of his going to the States for face such a charge, etc.

For the other side of the story, see John Pilger's article in today's Guardian about Assange's apparent problems.

He, I think, has fallen for the wrong conspiracy.

What do you think?

[entry]

Julian Assange and Wilileaks are entering a new phase where there will be a final solution to whether he is extradicted back here - though this will take even more time if he ... (show full quote)

Julian Assange and Wilileaks are entering a new phase where there will be a final solution to whether he is extradicted back here - though this will take even more time if he appeals it to the European Court of Human Rights - shouldn't we have a general discussion about it all? ... (hide full quote)

Regarding the criminal charges levied by the Swedish government against Julian Assange I do not believe a general discussion is needed. This should not have dragged out as long as it has and frankly reminds me of the legal case against the pedophile rapist Roman Polanski. There has been biased spartan reporting of the case I do not know the merits. IMO from what I read, Julian Assange met a woman, had a consensual one night stand with her and in the morning decided to shag her while she was drunk without the use of a condom. Rules are rules. Unless there is more to the story I doubt Julian Assange will be given more than a wrist slap by the Swedish government.

Popular leftists who "buys ink by the barrel" are subject to the same laws that you and I must follow. Trow, why is it that some in society believe that activist journalist, leftist politicians and Eco-terrorists should have a completely separate rule of law than the rest of us?

I seriously doubt that if longtime Bill and Hillary Clinton supporter, Rupert Murdoch were in the same predicament as Julian Assange we would be having this conversation.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

While most people think that it is a sinister plot, where the Swedish authorities are complict in wanting to really get him - ultimately sending him to the States to face tria ... (show full quote)

While most people think that it is a sinister plot, where the Swedish authorities are complict in wanting to really get him - ultimately sending him to the States to face trial for espionage, and possible execution, ... (hide full quote)

This is the strange part. If he goes to Sweden it will be impossible to extradite him without UK consent due to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. It is way much easier to just extradite him from the UK right away.

[entry]

Bender,

The chips must fall where they may. A suspect of a crime in one country is not excused from the due process of law because some suspect he may be prosecuted for other crimes that he may or may not committed in another country.

Are individuals that are suspected of crimes in the USA who may or may not have committed rape or sexual assault in Sweden given a free pass by media and activist driven popular opinion or is rule of law to be followed?

[*Trowbridge H. Ford*]

Another thing that should be clarified is that Julian Assange in not a leaker - he is the publicizer of leaks provided him.

So that this rules out his being the leaker of any material Bradly Manning leaked to people like Adrian Olamo or even Wikileaks.

And Assange could not have leaked the Afghan Log as he had no role in its collection, deciphering, and dissemination. That's where Williams and Loftus apparently came in.

And leaking who these leakers might well be - what Assange faciliated by not deleting names of those whose operations were leaked - would explain why Williams and Loftus were murdered.

And if this is the case, Assange aided and abetted their elimination - something that NATO officials would most appreciate, not want to destroy one about.

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Bender,The chips must fall where they may. A suspect of a crime in one country is not excused from the due process of law because some suspect he may be prosecuted for other c ... (show full quote)

Bender,

The chips must fall where they may. A suspect of a crime in one country is not excused from the due process of law because some suspect he may be prosecuted for other crimes that he may or may not committed in another country.

Are individuals that are suspected of crimes in the USA who may or may not have committed rape or sexual assault in Sweden given a free pass by media and activist driven popular opinion or is rule of law to be followed? ... (hide full quote)

Nothing what you wrote makes any sense, but in any case the UK has to give consent for further extradition according to the EAW:

"4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law."

[entry]

Nothing what you wrote makes any sense

Your response leaves me perplexed.

I fail to see what other crimes Julian Assange may or may not have committed as perceived by other countries(i.e. the USA) has any bearing on the criminal charges that Sweden is bringing against him.

Bender do you believe that Julian Assange is not subject to the same rule of law that you and I must follow?

[Bender B Rodriquez]

Your response does not make any sense since it has nothing to do with my initial statement that you responded to.

Yes, he is subject to the same law as everyone else, but that was not at all what I was discussing.

[*Trowbridge H. Ford*]

As I see it, the dispute between Bender and Entry is whether Assange can be extradicted from Sweden for espionage to the USA while waiting to be tried for rape here without the UK's approval. I think he can.

The more important issue, though, is what is really behind all this confusion and delay.

Most people think that it is just authorities, particularly Swedish ones, just wanting to get Assange and Wikileaks for disclosing all these embarrassing documents, and the alleged rape is the only crime that they can get them on.

I think that this is a smokescreen for explaining away what happened to the leakers of the Afghan File, the murders of MI6/GCHQ agent Gareth Williams, and his GCHQ associate Gudrun Loftus.

Williams, increasingly angry about what his Anglo-American superiors were attempting to set up Putin's Russia for - i.e., the American 'sleeper cell' which was originally intended to catch Moscow's spies but was turned around to look like a Russian one - went ballistic when he learned of it while trying to open encrypted messages on laptops ten of them, especially Anna Chapman, were using.

Williams, along with Loftus's help, had also been doing the same thing for the NATO forces, fighting the Talaban in Afghanistan, and he knew of Chapman's role in trying to catch Russian spies by her previous visits to the flat that MI6 had provided him in London while getting up the Afghan File.

When Williams learned of the Anglo-American set up of the ten alleged 'Russian sleepers' he went ballistic, and Putin's people sought him out to see if he would agree to swapping real spies, one of whom he had helped catch for Moscow, in return for all the native Russians who had been duped by CIA and MI6.

After Williams agreed, and went to America in the hope of learning more about the dirty conspiracy, he was apparently poisoned, and died shortly after returning to London. When Loftus learned of Williams's fate, she decided to take his place, but she too was killed - pushed backwards down the stairs outside the Senior Common Room at St. John's College, Oxford, early one morning in October 2010.

These murders got rid of Assange's leakers, but still left open who had killed them, especially the obviously murdered Williams.

Now the Anglo-American securocrats are trying to make out again that the Manhattan 11 were really Russian spies, and we can all assume that when his long-delayed inquest takes place that the British authorities will make out that Williams discovered what they were doing for Mosow, and its security service killed him, like it allegedly killed Alexander Litvinenko.

For the build-up of the completely false information, see the book that Edward Lucas is just publishing: Deception, Spies, Lies And How Russia Dupes The West. There is an article about it by the author in the Daily Mail.

It is the worst thing I have ever seen, worse than anything even the KGB cooked up, but it is intended to get the Williams inquest to adopt a narrative verdict that he was murdered, apparently by some hostile intelligence agency, as if anyone will doubt who it is blaming.

There will be no inquest for the murdered Loftus as the Thames Valley Police - the kingdom's leading force in explaining away any murder - has already decided that it was just another accident, like the killing of Professor Steven Rawlings who began to question what had happened to her, Dr. Kelly, and Stephen Hilder.

[byke]

It's often discussed how much this legal issue is costing Assange and his group.
But no one seems to be questioning the cost to the Swedish tax payer, and the amount of fumbling mistakes leading up to this point.

While I can't judge the legal case, it's evident that the case leading up to EAW was fumbled and has resulted into a long drawn out case which is costing the Swedish tax payer an obscene amount of cash.

I wonder if an investigation after this case has ended, in regards to waste of public resorces and competence etc, would yield any results or be yet another case of good money spent on old rope.

It would be even more interesting if Assange was found innocent.
As if that was to happen it would then question the competence of the state versus Assange and subsiquent legal system which could further lead to the questioning of the legal system and how it's enforced.

Either way, it must be a horrible case for many of those envolved.

[entry]

This is the strange part. If he goes to Sweden it will be impossible to extradite him without UK consent due to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. It is way much easier ... (show full quote)

This is the strange part. If he goes to Sweden it will be impossible to extradite him without UK consent due to the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. It is way much easier to just extradite him from the UK right away. ... (hide full quote)

Your response does not make any sense since it has nothing to do with my initial statement that you responded to.Yes, he is subject to the same law as everyone else, but that ... (show full quote)

Your response does not make any sense since it has nothing to do with my initial statement that you responded to.

Yes, he is subject to the same law as everyone else, but that was not at all what I was discussing. ... (hide full quote)

Yes, you are of course correct Bender. My initial comment to you was towards Trow's original proposition "shouldn't we have a general discussion about it all? ". My reply to trow was "no", as ancillary discussions regading future extradition is being used as a public relations maneuver by Assange's legal team and supporters.

Your comment "strange part[...] it will be impossible to extradite him without UK consent due to the terms..." did clarify the extradition but that is an issue that should have no weight in the extradition of Assange to Sweden regarding the criminal indictments filed. There is too much talk of unrelated possible future extraditions and possible prosecutions outside of Sweden.

Assange has charges in Sweden. He must face them here in Sweden. All other talk of Assange's sagas should have no weight on Sweden's rights to due process of law.

My prodding you with regards to your take on Assange facing Sweden's justice system had nothing to do with the content of your reply to Trow's OP. Your position statement was desired by myself, the question was asked, answered & the action of you taking the time to respond was appreciated(although I am additional pleased that your reply was matter of fact and what I feel is inline with my own on this issue).

It's often discussed how much this legal issue is costing assange and his group.But no one seems to be questioning the cost to the Swedish tax payer, and the amount of fum ... (show full quote)

It's often discussed how much this legal issue is costing assange and his group.
But no one seems to be questioning the cost to the Swedish tax payer, and the amount of fumbling mistakes leading up to this point. ... (hide full quote)

Criminal actions demand a judicial response and the burden falls on all the tax payers regardless of the end result.

Byke, your statement "It would be even more interesting if Assange was found innocent" I also share in a watching a slow train wreck kind of way.

If Assange is found innocent will his accuser be found culpable and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

[entry]

As I see it, the dispute between Bender and Entry...

There is no dispute between Bender and myself. I was terse and my questions and statements were not framed exclusive to Bender but also to yourself, Trow, and all others who may be reading.

The lack of clarity lies with myself. -Paul

[entry]

[..]The more important issue, though, is what is really behind all this confusion and delay.Most people think that it is just authorities, particularly Swedish ones, just want ... (show full quote)

[..]The more important issue, though, is what is really behind all this confusion and delay.

Most people think that it is just authorities, particularly Swedish ones, just wanting to get Assange and Wikileaks for disclosing all these embarrassing documents, and the alleged rape is the only crime that they can get them on.

I think that this is a smokescreen for explaining away what happened to the leakers of the Afghan File, the murders of MI6/GCHQ agent Gareth Williams, and his GCHQ associate Gudrun Loftus.[..] ... (hide full quote)

Trow, I am sort of with you here. I am disappointed with the original handling of the criminal accusations against Assange. If Sweden's criminal "sexual assault" charges have merit Assange should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, I am unclear of the handling of the case, it seems to me that the legal process is not transparent here in Sweden. This, being on the outside looking in, does not seem to be a good thing but it does not necessarily mean that justice is not being served albeit with a painfully slow grinding of many wheels in several countries.

The Swedish "sexual assault" charges against Assage, assuming they have merit should have been prosecuted, efficiently and without regard to issues believed to have international implications. It is however, a common practice to detain and begin prosecution for one crime while building a case for another.

Swift action would be my preference but this does not seem to be the way of the world of lawyers and bureaucrats. If the "sexual assault" charges brought against Assange are merit-less I want the full prosecution of his accuser, although there are cases where there simply is not enough evidence and culpability cannot be found on either side.

Bradley Manning, a volunteer in the United States armed services appears to have commuted acts of treason and should face those charges. I do not know that he will, "some animals are always more equal to other animals". Trow you of course know the POTUS' relationships with acknowledged '60s terrorists and racial separatist organizations & he now has armies in four different African countries and proudly waves the Nobel Peace Prize(Bestowed by Norway) as the leftist media has somehow forgotten the moronic idea of putting terrorists in Guantanamo Cuba when Obama finished the second of two terrorist detention centers that are much larger in Afghanistan during his first few years as POTUS.

It is unclear to me what possible charges the United States government can level against Assange a non-citizen of the United States.

Assange being declared Persona non grata by the United States would seem to me the most expeditious action and one that I would not have a problem with my current understanding of the situation.

BTW: Trow, I was a slightly miffed that you sent me to the Marxist Guardian in your OP but I do follow your links and those of certain posters here at thelocal user forum.

[cogito]

@entry, +1

@Trowbridge, good to see you back and in form.

@byke, trowbridge, entry and bender, thanks for the first truly informed, lucid and interesting discussion of l'affaire Assange that I have seen so far.

[*Trowbridge H. Ford*]

Thanks, cogito, glad to be back.

Sorry about your troubles with the US tax people. They are a law unto themselves. When I taught at Holy Cross, it awarded me a faculty fellowship to do research on A. V. Dicey's political activites which were most important in complicating Britain's Irish Question from the time Home Rule arose until the Irish civil war. I wanted to take advantage of tax deductions because of the expenses going to and from Harvard's libraries and other places, etc.

Internal Revenue challenged my claims, stating that it was just part of my employment since the College paid for the fellowship. I argued in its tax court that it should just be treated like any other fellowship since it was awarded by a committee of fellow teachers, but the flunkey judge went along, surprise, surprise, with the tax vultures.

The only good thing was at the time Nixon was in the biggest trouble because of The Plumbers and Wategate, and I am sure that Tricky Dick got one of his flunkies at the head office to do a complete review of all my taxes that could be reviewed. The chance of this happening was some incredibly low figure.

Fortunately, the scoundrel had made some enemies in the local tax office, and the reviewer was most sympathic to my cause, and most hostile to Nixon's. As I recall, she staggered the depreciation of my book purchases over many years, resulting in my getting back quite a bit more from the IRS than I wanted from the fellowship.

Ford +1

And Entry's characterization of The Guardian as quite leftist and Marxist seems a bit dated.

As for Assange, I notice in reading his mother's defense, she said that its disclosures didn't result in anyone's being hurt, much less killed. How does she know? And what about Williams, Loftus, and Professor Rawlings when he took exception to what one of her colleagues at St. John's College, Oxford may have done to her, resulting in his killing too.

You know how Moms are. Mine went out of her way to make sure that I didn't get killed in the Korean War.

Really nice world we live in!