There are plenty of signs of manipulation. After all the original charges
were
thrown out within a day. Ardin the one accuser threw a party for Assange just
after the alleged crimes. It was only after she found out that another woman
had
sex with him that she and the other woman complained in the first place. Ardin
has connections with the Social Democratic party. She was able to get a high
profile lawyer also in the party to get the charges reopened. All during Sept.
and November no one sent any information to Assange. It was late November
before
he got info. The Interpol warrant is for questioning. He offered to answer
questions in the UK. Why did not the Swedes accept that. Many think that the
whole process is meant to be a step towards getting charges and an extradition
order from the U.S. Already Swedish and U.S. diplomats apparently are
discussing
this.The important point is that Assange is caught and in custody.
________________________________
From: Robert Naiman <[email protected]>
To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, December 8, 2010 11:32:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Assange & bin Laden
The apparent convergence of the Swedish legal case against JA and the US
government-led assault against Wikileaks seems to me quite unfortunate.
Sweden has relatively broad laws regarding the definition of sexual assault.
Regardless of what one thinks of this - certainly, in general, I would think
many of us would sympathize with the spirit of Sweden's broad definitions, if
not always the application - they are Sweden's laws. Sweden gets to enforce its
laws on its territory, and Britain, as a fellow EU member, has to respect that.
The US government-led campaign against Wikileaks, on the other hand, is totally
outrageous. The Attorney General says he is trying to figure out ways to charge
Australian JA under the 1917 Espionage Act for doing that which the US New York
Times has done: publish classified US government documents. US officials are
pressuring companies to cut off hosting of Wikileaks and the ability of people
to make donations even though Wikileaks has been charged with no violation of
US
law. Not to mention the threats of assassination, etc., which are not coming
directly from the US government, but which are inspired by the US government
jihad and which the USG is doing nothing to contain.
It's quite possible that unseen hands are attempting to manipulate the Swedish
case legally for other ends (it's beyond dispute that it is being used so
politically), but no-one has produced any solid evidence so far for the claim
that the legal case has been so manipulated, as far as I am aware, so I think
people should be cautious about that allegation. It's certainly true that JA
has
the right not to be selectively targeted for over-prosecution in the Swedish
case, but by the same token, his accusers have the same right that he not be
selectively under-prosecuted.
What the US government is doing publicly is bad enough for outrage; this should
be the focus.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
Julian Assange, like Daniel Ellsberg and Joe Wilson, Feels the Heat
>
>By Matthew Rothschild, December 7, 2010 [the PROGRESSIVE web-site]
>
>So now Julian Assange is under arrest.
>
>I’m in no position to fully weigh the evidence against him, and I take
>all allegations of rape and sexual misconduct seriously.
>
>But I wonder: His accusers allegedly sent text messages and tweets
>boasting about having sex with him, and the allegations reportedly
>include that he didn’t use a condom when having consensual sex.
>
>And I wonder: Would any other person charged on such flimsy evidence
>in Sweden really have interested British law enforcement?
>
>What I know for an absolute fact is that the U.S. government is intent
>on destroying him.
>
>They want to destroy him not for allegedly committing a sex crime but
>for committing the crime of journalism, for exercising the right of
>free speech and freedom of the press.
>
>Until his arrest, the U.S. government seemed to be putting more
>pressure on him than [on] Osama bin Laden.
>
>Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said he had attacked not only the
>United States but the entire world.
>
>Newt Gingrich demanded that he be named an enemy combatant and sent, I
>guess, to Guantanamo or Bagram.
>
>Bill O’Reilly said he should be assassinated.
>
>This is the most reactionary, repressive response to speech and to the
>press since Daniel Ellsberg’s Pentagon papers.
>
>And it’s eerily reminiscent of a scene in “Fair Game” when Naomi
>Watts, playing Valerie Plame, yells at Sean Penn, playing her husband,
>Ambassador Joe Wilson. She tells him that they are just two little
>people up against the White House, which can crush them.
>
>It’s all the same issue: The empire can’t stand to have someone
>pointing out that it’s got no clothes on—or that it’s linen is dirty.
>
>It doesn’t matter whether that person is Ellsberg, Ambassador Joe
>Wilson, or Julian Assange.
>
>The empire will do what it can to destroy that person. And so it is.
>--
>Jim Devine / "The conventional view serves to protect us from the
>painful job of thinking." - John Kenneth Galbraith
>_______________________________________________
>pen-l mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
--
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
[email protected]
Attend a "South of the Border" Screening on Human Rights Day
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/southofobama/search
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
