You really didn't bother doing any deep research did you?
The two women agreed the sex was consensual, they just wanted Assange tested for STDs, not charged. The charges only came about after the leaks scandal and were not brought about by the women but by prosecutors, thus leading to a reasonable perception that the charges were more political than about protecting women.
So repeating "sexual assault" several times like the rest of the media just makes it look more like a beat-up.
Shooting the messenger and bringing death threats down on those who threaten the secrecy of corrupt governments is the real issue. Let the women actually accuse him of assault before leaping to their defence and aiding the corrupt.

Good article, thanks, though, some people will always see conspiracies.

I heard an interview on the ABC (The Australian ABC) last night with the lawyer for the two women, and he kept saying under persistent badgering by the interviewer, that this has nothing to do with wikileaks, that it is a civil case. The interviewer clearly was of the opinion this was a US inspired plot, so much for objectivity and being unbiased .. oh wait, it was the ABC, what was I thinking.

Why ozandy is determined to make a huge US conspiracy is best known to him, but it is in keeping with the usual bleating anti US behavior on this forum.

(ozandy is best known for being able to prove any AGW skeptic is being paid to be a skeptic, another conspiracy of course .. though seems awful quiet about that lately, now that over 50% of Australian are said to be skeptical, must be a huge warchest eh ozandy?)

Assange cannot be transferred to the US without Sweden and British permission under EU law. The US do not have any warrants out for his arrest, not even sure if he can be charged under US law, they are annoyed with him, but can't do much about it.

The Swedish charges are a completely different matter and unrelated .. just coincidental, he man is a loose cannon, is it any wonder he's in trouble.

mind you none of the facts stop the breathless hysteria and exaggeration of the anti US crowd. If it were Chinese data being released, would anyone care if they were upset, as much as they care about the US being embarassed .. of course not

A world wide case of left wing shadenfreud .. amusing to watch how biased and hypocritical they can be .. compare this to the CRU leaks outrage because the documents were "stolen" ! There was no cry for the rest of CRUs data to be released, why, we were told it was "private" and we should not discuss them because of that .. unbelievable hypocrisy.

You were going well until your "reality check" turned to hearsay from the British media. At first, you told us that the details of the charges were unknown. Then you told us what the charges were, using the media as your source. A little sloppy, I must say.

That said, the whole Assange saga has been a bit unsettling for me. I don't fully agree with what he is doing (with Wikileaks - if he is a rapist, then I fully disagree with what he was doing in that regard), and I don't fully support the notion that he has the right to do it. If my neighbour hands me her husband's bank statements and I publish them on the internet, am I not committing a crime? Just because I have access to information (which I shouldn't be able to access) doesn't make it right for me to publish that info.

I'm not entirely convinced that the charges are trumped up, either - but I am fairly comfortable with the assertion that they are pursued with so much vigour because of who he is rather than what he did way back when he was in Sweden. It appears that his "victims" have been sidelined and are among the least fervent campaigners against Assange.

All in all, then, I thank Ms Dalton for a vigorous opinion piece. I suspect that the opening sentence sums up the purpose of the article nicely - it's meant to be shocking and unpopular rather than accurate or insightful.

For someone who suggests that we don't get involved with conspiracy theories she spent three pages doing just that or rather convincing us that Julian Assange is probably guilty.

I guess someone was bound to support the women in Sweden who have not yet emerged from their hiding places and whose statements, lies or otherwise have not yet hit the headlines except to say that they did have sex with Julian Assange. As for your idea that how could this be conspiracy, Marian, please address the reality of 2010 where we live with false flag activities avery day, where the US / Israel consortium conspires to commence a war Iran, where lies commenced wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and all the other devious activities occurring under your nose, daily. The US is capable of anything.

The point I think that the world is making. Marian, including Judges in case you are not aware, is that he has been charged, no bail, he is being called a terrorist by the extremist US politicians and finally, that he didn't actually steal the documents.

Once we have agreed on those points, may I respectfully suggest that you save yourself the trouble of writing three more pages on the same subject, wait for the charges to be identified.

Until then, point you pen at the arrogance of US politicians, the lawlessness of US politians, the fact that there is a strong move in this country by Arbib and Gillard to sell out our independence to the US military for bases on our soil and then ask yourself if you would want to be part of, or perhaps even controlled by a country that has such pathetic values and deranged politicians.

The insignificant tail on the ugly US dog.

I think there are items there that would warrant your time and effort but not today's wording of 'much ado about nothing' and innuendo. If he is truly guilty, you’ll get your chance to gloat which appears to be your main interest in the matter. But how would one ever know?

In the meantime, Go Wikileaks!

otokonoko - that's a very good point "Just because I have access to information (which I shouldn't be able to access) doesn't make it right for me to publish that info."

which seems to be lost here .. the general opinion on the other OLO article fora is that wikileaks MUST publish everything and it is only democratic if we know everything and only a moron would want to limit what is published.

Extreme, but you get a range of views here as anywhere. If more embarrassing facts are leaked about Australia, there might be a change of tune ..

As you say, it's all good fun, (right up until it's you in the leaks)

Whereas I agree that it is unlikely that the whole thing is a conspiracy by the US to get its hands on Assange, you cannot blame people for thinking so.

The fact that you have people like Tom Flanagan, Sarah Palin, a whole host of FOX network commentators calling for him to be killed, gives many people a reason to believe in a conspiracy.

Government documents have been leaked ever since governments have existed and there has never been such a fuss on a global scale to "find" one man.

Even after 9/11 did you see such rabid talk coming from politicians over Bin Laden (whom that Americans still haven't caught).

The charges against Assange were dropped back in August and have now suddenly been resurrected. Surely you would have to question why.

Whereas I believe the conspiracy theorists are wrong at the extreme end, I believe you are wrong with you blatant dismissal that this is just an ordinary case of sexual assault with no other agendas in play.

Regardless of what any of our opinions are, the most relevant issue is that Assange is entitled to due process and fair treatment under the law. He is entitled to see the charges against him (even the British judge said he wants to see the charges).

He should also receive all the support the Australian government can must as an Australian who is in trouble overseas.

While it's probably good to read a contrarian
opinion about Assange's arrest, surely Ms Dalton
can do better than

"And maybe there is an element of vindictiveness at work here.
Maybe a couple of ex-girlfriends have decided to punish him,
or a government is looking to discredit him. If that’s the case,
then the best possible course of action is to front the court with
those lawyers and challenge them to prove the allegations."

Just a tad Pollyanna-ish, I think. However, this
is truly a fascinating story that gets better every
day. As I've said before, I can't wait for the movie.
Pity George Clooney's a bit old for the lead.

Thanks for this piece. I'm not clear on what the charges are but had been having similar thoughts on the reaction to this. I'm more clearly in favor of the work Wiki-leaks is doing than the author is but I think that the fallout should not be Assange being shielded from the charges, rather a heightened monitoring of how the case is handled.

There are risks for Assange that this may possibly be a big setup but it's also possible that he has done the wrong thing in regards to sexual conduct with one or more women. Popularity should not be a shield against the processes that others similarly charged would face.

Wiki-leaks does when it publishes material run the risk that others may be harmed by tyrants as a result of being identifiable in that material. It's easier to support that risk when you are unlikely to be in the line of fire but ultimately we each make a choice about the consequences of collateral damage vs wrongdoing behind the scene's.

I'd not like to see Wiki-leaks starting to filter the material (leaving out what they think we don't need to know), that process could easily be subverted, we found out Clinton and Rice had both engaged in similar tactics, what if we had only been told about one of them?

R0bert

I agree that it's unhelpful to demonise his accusers. The accusations themselves may be true, we simply do not know. We don't even really know what the accusations are.

It is reasonable however to question the actions of the authorities. The issuing of an Interpol red notice before any actual charges are laid. The denial of bail to someone who had surrendered voluntarily, when according to a letter to the Guardian by Women Against Rape, bail is routinely given to violent men with a history of murdering their previous rape victims. The refusal to allow Assange to be interviewed by video link, at Scotland Yard or at the Swedish embassy as his lawyers had offered.

And it is not reasonable to dismiss the fears of his supporters as absurd conspiracy theories. Sweden really, truly, has allowed the CIA to use their territory as a base for extraordinary rendition. They really, actually, truly have allowed people to be taken off the streets of their capital by US agents, and be flown naked, bound and with objects in their anuses, to secret CIA prisons for gruesome torture. This has been acknowledged to have happened by the Swedish government. And they have apologised to some of the demonstrably innocent survivors, but they have reserved the right to do it again.

There is a bill before the US legislature right now that would expand the definition of espionage to include what WikiLeaks is doing, with a death penalty attached.

And even without the colour of law, US operatives have killed people, recently, for less. This is not fantasy, however much we might like it to be.

pro science - "The fact that you have people like Tom Flanagan, Sarah Palin, a whole host of FOX network commentators calling for him to be killed, gives many people a reason to believe in a conspiracy."

Where did Sarah Palin call for Assange to be killed?

That's slanderous, do you have proof of that?

Or is it just a hysterical, conspiracy theorist, throwaway line? (i.e. slander)

proscience? not facts obviously

No one is arguing that Assange should not be investigated just because of his status with Wikileaks. Rape is a serious charge, but it appears the charge is now not rape but sexual intercourse while not wearing a condom.

Wikileaks does not publish everything handed to them as clearly noted on their website especially in relation to risk to life. Perhaps there are one or two documents that one might think should not be published, but in the long term transparency serves us better than covert dealings and policy wrapped up in a veil of secrecy.

It might be the fuel for conspiracy theory but it is also the reality of politics. The reactions of the US government are more likely to foster conspiracy theories. Let the documents and responses speak for themselves.

The difference between publishing a person's private bank statement on the Internet and releasing information that shapes policy is vast. There is a privacy issue at stake with individuals - a right we all enjoy. What advantage is it for individuals to have access to private matters that do not affect anyone but the person to which the bank account belongs? It is not the same - governments represent the people they are acting on behalf of their citizens and the process should be transparent and include mechanisms to ensure accountability.

The reality check is no different from any other criminal case. Someone is accused, investigated, arrested (if applicable) then they are tried in a Court of Law. We cannot pretend that there are not conflicting and influencing issues that surround this case.

Both Assange and his accusers should be given the benefit of a fair hearing and let justice take its course.

As for conspiracy theories: many economic and political interventions of the past are now public and while once the fodder of conspiracy theories are now enshrined in historical fact. Most people are capable of reading, analysing data and using the tools of reason and probability to form an opinion. Everything is theoretical until disproved or validated and sometimes shades of grey between.

For those that don't believe Julian Assange has been set up you need to check out the following:

http://newmatilda.com/2010/12/08/what-has-really-been-disclosed

By James O'Neill.

It is riveting reading - and may explain the US concern as to what else is going to come out. There's also another excellent article in
"New Matilda" by Austin Mackell entitled, "They Lock Up Journalists,
Don't they?" that's worth a look.

Amicus: Sarah Palin linked to an article that asked "Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange?".

If the article was calling for Assange's arrest and trial it would have said that. It does not.
Snatch is an interesting term to use instead of "arrest", since it includes the kinds of secret abduction that the US agencies' "various assets" routinely engage in. And what is "neutralise" if not a euphemism for murder? If you don't want to be treated like a Bond villain, then don't talk like one.

OK, a link is not endorsement in itself. But it seems a lot like endorsement when it is accompanied by these words from Palin herself: "He is not a journalist ... He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands", and "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

It's disingenuous to interpret these statements as anything other than calls for Assange to be treated as an enemy combatant subject to arbitrary execution at any time.

I appreciate your point, pelican, and knew when I made the bank statement analogy that I was wide open for rebuttal. Thanks for making the rebuttal courteously.

I guess my point (or, rather, question) is an ethical one: if I come into possession of information that does not belong to me, was not intended for the public eye and may harm another person physically, emotionally or in any other way, do I have a right/responsibility to do anything with that information? I suspect that we are approaching this matter from different ideological stances - I do not believe that the common man, sitting in his study anywhere in the world, should have unlimited access to whatever information he can find. I am content with the knowledge that governments have secrets, and don't want to know what those secrets are (with some exceptions). While I can see some nobility in some of the information released, I see senselessness in other cases.

That said, what the naysayers and those damaged by the information should be asking is this: what has led those people with access to classified information to leak it? What are they doing wrong that even those intimately involved in the dealings of governments, multinationals and other organisations are so disenchanted that they are willing to risk their own personal safety and security to make the information public, either for the common good or simply to hurt their organisational leaders? Moral or otherwise, the Wikileaks story should serve as a wake-up call to those who are hurt by it.

@ Amicus, here are some sources. We all know that when the US forces are asked to pursue al Quaida, it means to eliminate them.

I have not slandered Sarah Palin. She is pro-execution. If you are so concerned about her reputation, give her a call and let her know what I have said.

The Vancouver Sun: December 8, 2010.
Tweed Shire Echo: December 9, 2010.

The Guardian: December 8, 2010. From an interview with Senator Joe Lieberman where he is quoted as saying: "Sarah Palin has called for Assange and allies to be "pursued" like al-Qaida and the Taliban".

Networkworld.com/news: December 2, 2010.

"Sarah Palin, who is widely tipped as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2012, has said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should be hunted down in the way armed forces are targeting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

Washington Post: November 29, 2010.
"Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?"

innocent or guilty Assange has not proven to be the Messiah that many make him out to be.

I don't think anybody really thinks Julian Assange is any kind of Messiah, Runner, but perhaps a little bit like Jesus in that he's not a god, but simply a rabble-rouser. A nice one, but a rabble-rouser none the less!

As for Sweden's sex laws, I have it on good authority from an ex-Swedish National that there are many men rotting in Sweden's jails for having sex in an "unlawful" way. Apparently that country's sex laws are weird in the extreme.

Still, I do agree with the law and the law (however flawed) should be allowed to work, but at the first sign of US Government interference, I'd be very disappointed if the Gillard Government didn't intervene, but having read about Gillard's current stance against Assange, I suppose I'll be bitterly disapointed.

By the way, I haven't heard much from the "mad monk' on the matter either. Come on Tony. I need someone else to vote for once this mob is tipped out of power!

ah proscience, that's usual for a hysterical serial exaggerator .. so we've gone from Sarah Palin calling for Assange to be killed, to "She is pro-execution"

haha .. US haters all fall into the same unthinking manner, right up till they get called out and then have to back up and make scrappy excuses.

Why would I call Palin?

I asked if you had slandered her, she gets left wing nuts all the time accusing her of saying things she never said, thanks for reinforcing the model.

Amicus, in the second post to this thread, says:

"I heard an interview on the ABC
(The Australian ABC) last night
with the lawyer for the two women,
and he kept saying under persistent
badgering by the interviewer, that
this has nothing to do with wikileaks,
that it is a civil case."

It very well may be a (Swedish) civil case, but to claim that it has nothing to do with Wikileaks would appear, from this Reuters news item dated 3 December 2010 by Adam Cox and Niklas Pollard, titled 'WikiLeaks' Assange to fight any extradition: lawyer' (See: http://reut.rs/f78FSP ) , to be at the very least an extremely naive and possibly misleading one.

The item reported, amongst other things, that:

"Assange has spent much of his time
in Sweden lately, and was accused
earlier this year of sexual misconduct
by two female Swedish WikiLeaks volunteers."



Two women interested enough in what Wikileaks was doing to work for the organisation as volunteers, eh?



Whilst such a work relationship of itself would in no way excuse any non-consensual sexual activity, the prospect that the women had volunteered for the purpose of gaining inside knowledge of what Wikileaks was about, and/or engineering a deliberate sexual compromising of Assange, is one that any worldly-wise person would have to entertain given the interests that may be seen to be threatened with disadvantage arising out of the Wikileaks revelations.

Hurtig (Assange's Swedish lawyer) was reported in the news item as saying:

"I have seen the documents, and I can't
say that I think it is a set-up by the
CIA or something, but I suspect that there
is someone else who is pushing Sweden to
(take) these most unproportional measures
that they are doing right now, and is pushing
Sweden to push Interpol to make this arrest
warrant public. I think somebody has an
interest in getting Julian to Sweden and maybe
asking for him to be extradited to another
country (from there)."

Or having Sweden declare him persona non grata and deport him to ..... Australia?

@amicus, are you a troll or do you just have serious problems with basic reading comprehension?

You asserted that it would be unfair to Palin's reputation to say that she was calling for Assange to be killed. A few of us then quoted the statements where she had done exactly that. And someone else pointed out that since she is avowedly pro-execution, to say that she is pro-execution is not bad for her reputation. She ENJOYS the reputation she has as an ignorant gun-toting US-chauvinist.

So: what we have is that you are wrong in fact, and your internal logic is broken anyway. We have a term for that: Not Even Wrong. Your arguments don't even make enough sense to refute. Good luck with that.

@ amicus, you have clearly shown yourself to be free of logic or reason. Nowhere have I indicated I hate the US. There is no point in "hating" a country. One can disapprove of a country's policies on certain issues, but countries are full of people who are have varying ideas about things.

Now, as for being a "left wing nut", I used to be an extremely pro-US supporter. I supported the Vietnam war and volunteered for the army, opposed the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, and even as a child wanted Australia to become a part of the US.

Your problem is, you have no idea who you are speaking to, what their beliefs or ideals are and just make it up based on a few words.

I think it fair to say, based upon your own comments, that you have some serious reality issues and can't take an objective and logical stance.

The thing is, sometimes the US does good things, sometimes it does bad things, sometimes it does just plain stupid things and other times, it does pointless things.

I certainly have neither love nor hatred for the US but I reserve the right to have an opinion on what it does and what some of its prospective leaders have to say.

I think you should get over your US fetish. It isn't healthy.

These governments take their populations into war based on lies, and then when someone tells the truth they cry "Kill him!"

Visa, PayPal, Amazon, all these closed down their commercial associations with WikiLeaks. Yet they are private organisations who stood to profit from their continued association. So why did they break their links? Just felt like cutting their profits I suppose? Obviously they resiled from contact in fear of the consequences threatened by the same ugly statists who are literally threatening to murder Assange for daring to tell the truth.

Go Wikileaks! Julian Assange for Australian of the Year!

You people have already tried this bloke and found him to be a saint.
Espianage carries big penalties, If this is found to be the case he will probably die. I would not have an opinion either way until clear evidence was one way or the other.
This bloke supposedly raped a couple of volunteers working for him, i makes you think he is working from a chook shed somewhere.
You must admit he is compromising the wellbeing of some nations, by publication on a world scale.
The publishing of critical sites was in no ones interest, except terrorists.
On whose authority is he working for

A couple of you are going very close to having posts deleted and profiles suspended.

Here is what Sarah Palin actually said. Took me a couple of minutes to track it down. Presumably others could have done the same.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/serious-questions-about-the-obama-administrations-incompetence-in-the-wikileaks-/465212788434

On whose authority is he working for

@ 579. You are jumping to conclusions. Who has called him a saint? I, for one, have simply said he is entitled to due process and considered innocent until proven guilty. That is what any person who lives in a civilised country should be entitled to.

Nobody has to admit that he has compromised the well-being of any country. You are naive to even think that.

As for the critical sites, they are sites that the US deemed to be critical in their interest, not necessarily the interest of the host nation. If these sites are critical, then they should be well guarded. Some of the people who owned or worked at these sites didn't even know they were "critical". What would the US do if these people didn't so-operate with them?

Assange himself is simply a spokesperson for Wikileaks, but he is not Wikileaks. He is in gaol, but the information is still being released.

As for the "rape" charge, he is not being charged with rape by the same definition as most countries define it. Both women have admitted to having consensual sex with him and both of them withdrew their charges against him in August. The charges of rape were resurrected by the Swedish prosecutor without the two women asking that it be done. All they wanted was for him to submit to a test for STDs.

On whose authority are the newspapers working when they publish all this material. The number of people who have access to this information via Wikileaks itself is rather small but when the world's major newspapers publish it, they are vastly increasing the number of people who have access to it. Why are they not being hounded, arrested and chased down?

Objectivity is needed here, not blanket assumptions.

Peter Hume,

Once again, I agree with you!

579,

Dear, oh dear....more nebulous qualifiers concerning the likelihood (or not) of the culpability of Assange.
We already have "maybe", "could", "possibly" "allegedly", "might", and "potentially"- and now you add "supposedly" to the mix.
Right on!

Thanks, everyone, for such detailed comments and criticism.

1. Re: the specifics of the warrant. The bail hearing transcript details these. There are a number of allegations, including one that alleges consent for sex was withdrawn after a condom broke, and that Mr Assange continued despite this. This satisifes many definitions of sexual assault - a non-consensual sexual act. The difference is that there is arguably a greater risk of harm if carried out without use of a condom.

2. Re: the two women being Wikileaks volunteers. This is hardly a smoking gun, nor does it lend weight to the idea that these allegations form a conspiracy. It is possible, but cannot be construed as proof without corroborating evidence. It is equally likely they joined Wikileaks out of admiration for the organisation's work, and met Mr Assange socially through this.

3. Re: my 'Pollyanna' view of the judicial system. The best course of action is to let the courts do their job. This is not to say that the courts are infallible, nor that corruption might not exist. I would pose this counter-question: what good alternative is there? If Mr Assange had not surrendered and engaged an excellent legal team, he would have remained a wanted fugitive. Perhaps this is beneficial to a folk-hero reputation, but it would have damaging consequences for his quality of life.

In coming forward, Mr Assange shows himself willing to abide by judicial processes and to challenge the courts to prove his guilt. It demonstrates his belief in his innocence, and stymies the accusations of those who would use his flight as 'proof' of his guilt.

Above all, it ensures that the situation plays out under close global scrutiny. This puts intense pressure on all parties involved to act legally, transparently and ethically. The possibility of corruption can never be completely removed - but in the public eye, it is difficult to hide from a world that is increasingly cynical, and increasingly well-educated in discerning such behaviour.

Julian Assange is a tortured victim-creation of his society.

The Truth is that Julian is not responsible for placing individuals in danger - american society is because it facilitated the various wars etc that cause death to occur.

BUT - Julian is old-hat. His is a shallow case.

For the real meaty case, visit http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com

I think it is extremely irresponsible of anybody, including Ms Dalton, to be writing pieces about the Assange sexual assault charges in Sweden.

We have no real idea what these charges are. We have no right to pre-judge anybody involved.

All we have is incomplete information and what looks like astonishing co incidences.

Aside from that, it's sad when somebody can't recognise the enormous global significance of the Wikileaks dump, above and beyond the content of the cables.

Assange has taken sole responsibility for this dump - no one else in Wikileaks has been hounded and threatened with assassination. He is the front man and he's paying the price.

Nobody says he's a messiah - but plenty of people recognise the astonishing feat he's pulled off, whether or not they like it.

In the matter of evidence that the US are waiting for the Swedes to hand him over - that's a joke, right? You don't really expect to find any evidence for that anywhere, do you?

There was no evidence for weapons of mass destruction either, but look what happened there.

The hysteria has come from the US authorities and has been until today supported by our own government. Visa Mastercard Paypal and all the rest of them have been a trifle hysterical in refusing him service, wouldn't you say?

No matter what your opinion of Assange, what he has done and what he has set in motion is absolutely remarkable and he deserves credit for that.

When did you last do something that caused such an uproar about illegitimate government secrecy, Ms Dalton?

This is not in the same ball park as UFO's and I suggest that in attempting to make it so you are joining with those authoritarian minds who's sole reaction to the Wikileaks situation is to employ a classic anti whistler blower tactic of minimising the messenger, the better to minimise the message.

Ms Dalton is absolutely right about everything. The Kangaroo court has been in process, and the verdict is it's a witch hunt.
So now this man is up for rape.
He sounds like a common thug doesn't he.
I think the hero status is far premature.
I wonder if anyone can really say they have learnt something useful from these classified stolen pages of information.

Food for thought: One of the women who filed charges against Julian Assange states she is a christian, feminist, social democrat, animal rights activist, and opponent of abortion on the left political scene. She's previously been in charge of equality issues for the student union of a University - a job she won an award for. Today she works for a Brotherhood Movement. On her own blog she describes herself: 'A political scientist, communicator, entrepreneur, and freelance writer with special knowledge within faith and politics, gender equality issues, feminism, and Latin America.'

On Saturday 14 August at 14:00 she wrote the following on her Twitter account.

'Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb'

Early on the morning of Sunday 15 August (02:00) she writes again at Twitter.

'Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people, it's amazing! #fb'

When she files a police complaint against Julian Assange on 20 August these tweets are removed. Why? It's not common for victims of crime to delete blogs, clean up their mobile phones, and try to get witnesses to attest to things that aren't true. Why is it so important to remove these particular tweets?

If you know that the 'reported molestation' takes place on the night of 14 August, then it all becomes easier to understand. The tweets actually indicate that she really liked Julian and that there had been no molestation. You can't divine in the tweets that she thinks Julian has a 'warped view of womanhood and can't take no for an answer'. The tweets are more an attempt by her to shine in the brilliance of Julian Assange. Why else would she publish them on the Internet? The tweets don't match her story given to the police on 20 August. So she simply deletes them. But it's not as easy to remove things from the Internet. Google takes snapshots of how web pages look - so called caches-doing this has revealed the above, the plot thickens!

For one of the most informative articles to date on what Wikileaks has actually achieved, read *Wikileaks, the web and the power of the people,* by Dan Olden, on ABC 's The Drum today.

Instead of all this prurient, unsavoury and totally speculative low level gossip about a situation that only two people know the truth of, learning just what Wikileaks is bringing to the world might be of more interest.

Leave the sexual assault charges to the courts. Like I said, only two people know the truth of that encounter and they'll have to put their respective cases for the Swedish courts to judge.

Whatever the outcome, it won't change what Wikileaks has achieved, though there's plenty of people hoping the outcome will discredit them.

I'm beginning to wonder if the authors who are focusing on the sexual aspect of the situation do so because it's easy, and they can't get their heads around anything more demanding.

I mean, why go there? Go there when justice has been done, not before its even had a chance.

There's also a very good article on the Drum today about exactly what I'm saying.

briar, things seemed to be civil till someone mentioned sarah palin (accues of demaniding murder)and then all hell broke loose (someone challanged that) .. what are we all going to do when she's president? (that's just a joke ok, so everyone calm down)

Assange is in a mess, pretty well all of his own making, what on earth is he doing sleeping with people he works with, and publishing stuff he knows will annoy people in the extreme .. if that was me I would have STFU and gone to ground, not started holding press conferences, bragging, threatening legal action against julia gillard .. he's an attention whore.

he seems to have a poor sense of judgment on some things and a very different sense of justice on others, he wants to publish everyone else's data, but doesn't want his own private information (home address) published, nor does he want details of his swiss bank accounts published .. so where is his sense of openness now?

it will be interesting to see what happens

the yanks are not stupid, they know he has distributed his mother load, so they know there is no big deal in nailing him .. maybe that's a distraction, and the big game is somewhere else ..

Oh my god, rpg. I give up.

Can nobody see beyond Julian Assange's personality?

Look at any high achiever and you'll find something you don't like.
Actually, look at any human being and you'll find something you don't like. It's just more obvious and more up for discussion with a public figure.
Especially if it's about sex.

If he's guilty he'll be punished.
If he isn't he won't.
If the system judging him is unjust who knows what will go down?

We ordinary people will still be a whole lot better informed about how power works in this world because of what Wikileaks has started.

To paraphrase Sarah Palin: Leak, baby, leak.

"Why would anyone believe that the Swedish charges against Julian Assange are part of an international conspiracy?"

'Coz folk like conspiracy theories a good deal more than they like empirical data. This is why folk believe that the moon landing was shot in a studio, that the U.S. government blew up the WTC, that Opus Dei killed JFK, and that the charges against Julian are part of a conspiracy.

Because they're idiots.

I think that Israel intelligence sources are feeding Assange perhaps without his knowledge of the real source.The info seems pointed in a particular direction.Nothing really ground breaking has been revealed.We all know pollies lie and have delusions of grandeur.

The Mark Arbib revelations are aimed at discrediting the Labor Party.Israel desperately wants to go to war with Iran using the USA as their agent.Labor traditionally is against wars but the Liberals are more likely to fall into line with the war mongering neo-cons.

Study carefully the inflection and tone of these leaks.Who benefits?

Its a strange, strange world we live in.

In Australia a woman can admit to making a decision that her husband did not deserve to live, and still be found not guilty of murder or manslaugther.

Who knows what the truth is in regards to Assange?

All sides can construct seemingly valid arguements that is called Sophistry.

Even the socalled legal process, evidence can be fabricated or withheld. Depending on what ultimate purpose is.

Take a look at what happened to an australian politican, who was accused, held to trial by the media. Yet was not guilty of any offense, and still had his life ruined.

It is amazing how easy it is to lead people, when they are emotionally hooked. Of course this article written by this author serves a propaganda purpose, pushing her own political agenda.

Tactics like fear mongering, and exaggeration are all useful propaganda tools.

Many socalled journalistic articles or stories are about as honest and factual as PULP fiction.

"what on earth is he doing sleeping with people he works with, and publishing stuff he knows will annoy people in the extreme .. "

That's got to be the funniest comment I've read yet
about this saga.

Hanging's too good for him, and shut down all
universities, media outlets and publishing houses
forthwith!

Imagine that, sleeping with a colleague AND
publishing "annoying stuff". Unheard of.

It's rather ironic to see how many left liberals are suddenly prepared to imply that women make up sexual assault allegations.

This whole furore over Schapelle Assange is frankly ridiculous.

Let the law take its course.

I think that if the politicans had just ignored him and never talked about him or acknowledge what he had done, most of this would have died, through lack of oxygen.

As far as I am aware, most of the countries claim democratic government – Government by the people for the people. These governments do pass laws in contempt of the rights and welfare of many of the people, and want to conceal many from legitimate scrutiny. Concealing the reasons why these laws are made is really a crime against the people, and the people in the governments and others of powerful status who become frantic when despicable acts of parliament or of those powerful allies are brought to light. Sure, we have seen that Kennedy, ex President assassinated and more of them for various reasons, but surely, when someone brings out lots of information that we have every right to know, he should be protected, not conjured out of sight and hearing - we do have corrupt people in parliament, and in congress, Well, stupid anyway. “60 minutes in 2004, of George Bushes attack on Afghanistan” on the internet, should convince you of that – unless you belong to a political party, then you will only believe what your party tells you.

JamesH, "I think that if the politicans had just ignored him.."

Like many senior knobs they see risk primarily in terms of how it will affect them personally, having already confused their aims and good with that of the organisation, or in this case, country. It is also why it is so easy for them to go off the rails and convert public assets (or company assets) to their own use.

If all were acting in the public interest (or shareholder interest), fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities with regard for the law do you think they would be pursuing Assange? Assange's 'problem' is that he is not subject to an editor who knows on which side his/her bread is buttered.

talisman "Imagine that, sleeping with a colleague AND
publishing "annoying stuff". Unheard of"

not really, it was obviously lost on you .. people in high public profile who do what he did, end up as he has, that's not a surprise. He is obviously smart but lacks wisdom.

what was he thinking? He wasn't .. it's rhetorical .. (that means, it requires no answer)

Like others, I'm amazed at the people attacking the alleged victims here, a bit like they attacked Roman Polanski's child rape victim, what was it Whoopie Goldberg said, oh yes, "it wasn't rape rape", so because Roman is famous, it's OK. Because Assange is doing what the left, for the time being, applauds, it's OK.

How about all those who want a free and open world where all government records are in the open, publish their tax file numbers, and bank account details, their medical records, and all dealings yo and your families and businesses have with the government, please scan in all you tax returns .. that would be such a cool show of support. Perhaps you could all post your details to wikileaks, and be a big band of brothers .. I'll have a look later and see how many of you subscribe to such openness.

Well it looks like the story about the 'scandal' of Assange is occupying media interest, diffusing the issue of freedom of information and rights of access.

rpg - the open display of pesonal information has already been touched on. The display of your medical information, financial data is noone's business. The work of governments and those who work on behalf of government is the business of the people who 'fund' those activities. Taxypayers have a different right to access information than a person who just has an idle curiousity about someone else's personal affairs.

If any of us were to come in contact with information that clearly reveals corruption - ultimately who and what are we protecting if we choose to conceal it. Even if documents are basically inocuous, there is no harm with greater awareness of the machinations of government. It is also an opportunity to involve people more directly with their governments and in some areas of decision making.

Wikileaks is a depository for information, to accuse it of espionage activity (unlike any other jouranistic endeavour) is indicative of where we have come and why organisations like Wikileaks should be encouraged not demonised. The media who are writing stories based on the information supplied to Wikileaks are not being accused of espionage.

Are we better for having access to information that forms policy and other decisions governments make on our behalf. Based on reactions on OLO and talking to people in RL, many people are all for this 'people power' peaceful revolution.

The beauty of transparency is that it makes corruption much more difficult and I think this will work towards a better society than the continuing reliance on game-play and secrecy. For example, I would want to know more about the people we choose to trade with and exposing all the underhand deals, bribery and corruption will do more to level the playing field and ensure trickle-down effect to ordinary people more than the status quo.

To use a couple of worn cliche's - lets let it all hang out and put everything on the table.

Very well said, pelican. I don't think
that I could have responded to rpg's facile
comparison of Wikileaks with personal privacy
of individuals any better than you have.

Unlike individuals, information about governments
and corporations should be generally transparently
available, unless there are very good reasons for
secrecy. None of the information that I've so far
seen from Wikileaks should be secret.

Organisational secrecy facilitates illegal and
unethical behaviour. Individual privacy protects
us from it.

Fascinating stuff, Geoff of Perth, in your post of Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 4:46:08 PM.

You say, inter alia, in relation to claims as to Assange having been involved in sexual misconduct:

"... The tweets don't match her story given
to the police on 20 August. So she simply
deletes them. But it's not as easy to remove
things from the Internet. Google takes snapshots
of how web pages look - so called caches-doing
this has revealed the above, the plot thickens!"

It is an assumption that it was one of the complainants who deleted tweets. Whilst that may have been so, and would have been correspondingly unusual had it been done that way in such circumstances, it is also in my experience possible that Twitter can be subject to what appears to be a form of censorship by unidentified third parties, in which tweets seemingly go missing.

I hold a jaundiced enough view of Twitter to believe that it is capable of being used, and manipulated, as a world-wide 'intelligence' gathering tool quite independently of any actions of its ostensible proprietorship. It could have been that genuinely posted tweets could have provided information helpful to the orchestration of a sexual compromise scenario or claim as to molestation, but that those same tweets remaining on display could also subsequently undermine the credibility of such claim, as Geoff of Perth has already observed.

The author states:

"British media now report that the charges
include forcing one woman’s legs apart to
have sex with her, and taking advantage of
the other’s sleeping state to have sex
without her consent."

I wonder, should it be substantiated that one of the claims is that one of the women was molested whilst asleep, was she the one who's tweets have been, by whomever, taken down?

ProScience observes:

"I, for one, have simply said [Assange] is entitled to
due process and considered innocent until proven
guilty. That is what any person who lives in a
civilised country should be entitled to."

Not in the UK, these days!

TBC

Continued

There is every motivation for the UK government to want Assange removed to Sweden.

Should it be that the UK government was in the near future to receive a request from the US government for the extradition of Assange, an Australian citizen, especially if in connection with alleged terrorism (as is presently being noised about in some quarters within the USA with respect to Assange's activities), under the provisions of the UK Extradition Act 2003, it would seem that the UK government, without charge or hearing would simply comply with any US request.

The potential for diplomatic embarrassment of the UK with respect to Australia should it export on request an Australian citizen to the US is obvious.

That, after all, is exactly how the UK government treats its own citizens these days. Brian Howes, a UK citizen, was arrested and held in custody for over 200 days simply because the US authorities considered him a supplier of pre-cursor chemicals to meth labs in the US. The dealing in these chemicals was completely legal in the UK where Howes lived and operated his business. While released from custody following a hunger strike, he is still under house arrest in Scotland several years on whilst continuing to fight his extradition. http://wp.me/paXuz-6v

Meantime the Scottish government covers itself with glory releasing one of the Lockerbie bombers, whilst at the same time doing seemingly nothing on the part of one of its own citizens, other than perhaps isolating him from the generally better quality legal representation obtainable in English, as opposed to Scottish, courts.

I suspect the UK government is starting to get a scent of the opprobrium in which it is increasingly coming to be held by the public for its evident betrayal of basic principles of justice like the presumption of innocence, and the prohibition of detention without charge.

The risk of all this opprobrium boiling over should a high profile case such as Assange's put the spotlight upon extradition may be more than the present UK government can bear to contemplate.

Betrayal chickens coming home to roost?

My medication has been mucking my eyesight up for days and addling my brain, but as far as I can tell, there's some Chinese guy who has released hundreds of confidential emails sent between China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and al Qa'ida (?) and they have arrested him on some minor trumped-up charge of "forcing one woman’s legs apart to
have sex with her, and taking advantage of the other’s sleeping state to have sex without her consent." [As if that sort of thing constituted 'rape' !]

And in England, some other guy has demanded that the government observe the law, and allow freedom of speech and assembly, and he has been given eleven years' gaol.

And according to one authority, "Israel intelligence sources are feeding Assange [the Chinese guy?] perhaps without his knowledge of the real source" of his information. So Wikipedia is just another gigantic Jewish plot ? Thanks, Arjay.

I'm trying to untangle all of that, I just have to see my doctor first, he'll tell me to have cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie-down, in order to put it all into perspective. Good advice.

Joe

Perhaps one of the best reality checks with respect to the issue at stake with respect to the arrest of Assange is that provided by US Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona).

Senator McCain describes the Wikileaks publication of classified material as "an incredible breach of [US] national security".

John McCain is perhaps uniquely qualified to make this assessment. He has served in the US forces (I think as a Naval Aviator), including during the Viet Nam conflict, during which he became a POW in then North Viet Nam. He has also served the US as a diplomat, having been US Ambassador (post the 'American War') in ..... Hanoi, Viet Nam, the very place of his former imprisonment as a POW. To all reports he enjoyed great respect from the Vietnamese during his term as Ambassador. He has, of course, been a US Senator, and was a leading contender for the Republican party's nomination as its Presidential candidate at the last presidential election.



McCain, at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, http://bit.ly/ihKPHQ :

"pressed Pentagon leadership ... as to why nobody
-- other than a very junior soldier -- has been
held responsible for the leak of thousands of secret
national security documents to WikiLeaks. In a tense
exchange, McCain asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates
whether the Pentagon has identified or punished anyone else.

"Have you held anyone responsible?" McCain asked.

"Not yet," replied Gates, who earlier said the criminal
investigation limits the Defense Department's ability
to conduct an independent investigation."



The way I'd read that, and I suspect the way McCain read it, was that legitimate inquiry by a person of proven character and ability was just being fobbed off. The US Administration focussing more on the 'evil' of Wikileaks publishing something of believably public interest than upon the root cause, poor security of classified information. The US Administration, unless it is behind a deliberate release of such information, seemingly more concerned at protecting its reputation that its nation.

As McCain said, "[The leaks have been happening] since July".

The claimed events in Sweden happened in mid-August.

Another view: http://bit.ly/hqKTpg

Here is the latest

http://www.news.com.au/features/wikileaks/julian-assanges-accusers-are-jealous-liars-says-lawyer-bjorn-hurtig/story-fn79cf6x-1225969824914?from=heraldsun

<WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange's lawyer said he has seen secret police documents that prove the whistle-blower is innocent of sex assault claims made against him by two women.

Lawyer Bjorn Hurtig, representing Assange in Sweden where the charges were laid, said the papers reveal both women had "hidden agendas" and lied about being coerced into having sex.>

What ever the truth is, it is going to get lost in all the sensationalism.

This high profile case is just the case for psychopathic feminists to push their own political agenda regardless of the innocence or guilt of the accused, even if he is innocent, the story will be distorted to meet the purpose of their own biases and prejudices.

One cannot help but suspect that this case only serves as a means to justify the psychopathic feminists villification of males.

This bloke will end up in Cuba. It's the way he went about gaining information. Espionage, will be the charge.

James,

And what if the shoe is on the other foot ? Isn't that up to a court to decide ? Not you or me, not public opinion, but the courts ?

Joe

JamesH, I've read the article to which
you kindly linked, but I see no reference
at all to "psychopathic feminists".
Mr Assange's lawyer is quoted as saying
that his accusers have a "hidden agenda",
but there is no indication as to what that
might be.

I'm genuinely interested in this angle
of the case, so I wonder if you could
provided some evidence for your assertion
that the accusations are bogus because
they come from "psychopathic feminists"?

Or could it be that you have your own "agenda"?

If the basis for these nebulous Swedish allegations weren't constructed so loosely of fairy thread, then it might be possible to take them more seriously.
Nope, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck (in the form of trumped-up sex charges being used in an attempt to neutralise the accused).

JamesH says: "Here is the latest".

With all due respect, JamesH, something like that was always on the cards to come out. Indeed, it could even be held that the elicitation of such may have been something anticipated by the article author, but it would seem a pity to dwell upon speculations as to what we are told is a Swedish civil matter.

I suggest that the 'latest thing' is what is claimed to have been tweeted on Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt's Twitter account with the words:

"Most worrying attempt at terrorist attack
in crowded part of central Stockholm. Failed
- but could have been truly catastrophic..."

This is the link to the story in The Australian: http://bit.ly/igjaZD

An unbelievable fizzer of a suicide bomber attack by what are accepted to be, on the basis of other attacks elsewhere in the world, the world's experts at destructive suicide bomber attacks! Presumably the attack was made to place in the Swedish public consciousness that what is at issue in the Assange extradition is not a civil matter involving alleged sexual improprieties in Sweden, but one of Terrorism conducted in the UK; not one of US government lax document security, but of International Espionage cleverly stealing information despite the US' best efforts at keeping it secret.

I must admit the first thing to come to my mind was the Hilton bombing in Sydney, with all the suspicion and innuendo that it was an Australian security service exercise that went wrong. My second thought was as to from where the deceased in Stockholm had been 'rendered', and of what was he allegedly guilty (apart from being found dead near a terrorist bomb blast site) prior to such 'rendition'?

Does anyone know whether Julian Assange, as an Australian citizen in custody in the UK but having broken no UK law, is subject to the provisions of the UK Extradition Act 2003 as they apply to any extradition request for Assange the UK government might receive from the US?

Or must Assange's extradition, if justified, be sought from Australia?

Good points, Forrest,

Messing with the public's perception is an art. The Wikileaks phenomenon is widely held by most ordinary people as a movement upholding truth and openness.
The car bomb has been labelled a "terrorist attack". Even just a waft of association in the minds of the public suggesting a link between support for Assange and terrorism would be in the interests of those who would prefer to see Wikileaks and its ilk shut down.

Well, Poirot, there are always at least two ways we can go:

* take what we hear at face value, but be alert to all the possibilities (on both sides, Poirot) of misinformation;

or

* assume that nothing is as it seems - there is (probably) always a hidden hand behind everything.

The problem with the paranoid approach is its infinite regression - who is behind these 'trumped-up' charges against Assange ? Who is REALLY behind these supposed terrorist attacks in Stockholm ? And if it is obviously the Swedish secret police, who is REALLY behind THEM ? The CIA ? MI5 ? Or did al-Qa'ida deliberately bungle these attacks in order to falsely implicate the Swedish secret police/CIA/MI5 etc. ? Or did the Swedish secret police etc. deliberately bungle the attacks, in order to ridicule al-Qa'ida ?

And who is REALLY manipulating the Swedes ? Notice that the Chinese always come out of these things squeaky clean - now why is that ? Because they have nothing to do with it all ? Pleeeeeease ! Isn't that exactly what they would WANT you to think ? And what's more, in upper case ?

And of course, who is REALLY behind the Chinese ?

So I prefer the first approach, and trust to my scepticism about the motives of ALL players, of the media, various police and government forces, of the multitude of tanty groups.

Assange has been charged with - from surely a feminist point of view - serious crimes. Let the courts decide, always suspecting that there will be pressure from various forces on the judges and God knows what else. Let the women have their day in court, even if the judgment goes against him.

Oh, I'm SO naive !

Joe

With women being able to pull out of sex at any stage it wouldn't be hard to make a charge stick. Not the right way to go about information collecting or sharing.

579,

Well ..... yes ..... it's called 'consent' ..... without consent, it can be called 'rape'.

Thanks for all those images, by the way :)

Joe

Lets leave it to the courts to decide.

Joseph Stalin held trials for people who were accused of being a dissident. If I recall correctly very few were found innocent.

Recently there have been changes to the Australian legal system in some states where men accused of rape must prove their innocence.

Moral of the story is never, ever sleep with a swedish feminist or you might just as well hang yourself.

James,

Thanks for those insights: Stalin's trials all staged yada yada, ergo ..... All trials are corrupted ? No trial at all is better than a trial ? No judgment can be considered free and fair, anywhere ? Down with trials ! Demand trial-free regimes NOW !

As I tried to explain in what I thought were simple enough words, 'be alert to all the possibilities .... on both sides .... of misinformation.'

Hmmmmm .... I wonder who put you up to writing that .... and who is behind THEM ? And how do the Swedes and Chinese and Scientologists fit into it all ? Or those so-called bloody 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. Just evangelists ? Yeah, right.

So who is that Amway lady REALLY working for ?

Is that egg-shell I am about to step on, really an egg-shell or a cleverly-disguised cluster bomb ? Who planted it, I wonder ?

And if I step into that room, how do I know it hasn't been booby-trapped with poison gas ? You don't know what the Swedes might get up to .... or whoever is behind them, pulling their strings .... and who tells THEM what to do, hmmmmm ?

Welcome to ArjayWorld, James.

Joe

Joe, you are funny. ;0

The person that screen printed the image of Mr Assange on the wall of the Swedish Church ( image appearing in The Ages continuing saga on Wikileaks and the whereabouts of Mr Assange) was probably protesting against the extradition hearings taking place in London right now. The Swedish Government represented by the public prosecutor has issued an extradition order for Mr Assange to be trialled in Sweden for matters that are not related to the now world famous Wikileaks files. How this can be miconstrued as an attack on wikileaks is hard to see. In this instance it seems Julian Assange and his behavior is second to the Julain Assange as the face of wikileaks.
Moreover in defacing the walls of the Swedish Church the person is mistaken in his or her belief that the Swedish Church is somehow connected to the Swedish Government. The Church of Sweden officially separated from the State in 2000.
Among the members of our congregation in Melbourne many are Australians that have got an affinity with Sweden through their heritage or through visits or cultural ties with Sweden and Scandinavia.
We are a non-political charitable organisation and have to pay ourselves for cleaning the wall. The money spent on cleaning up the wall could have been better spent on our outreach work.
It is unfortunate that we are seen as a proxy for the Government of Sweden. I hope this post will clear up any misconceptions on the status of the Swedish Church that Wikileaks supporters in Melbourne have.

Roger Kalla Chairman of the Swedish Church in Melbourne

The article author, posting under the OLO userID of 'The Conscience Vote' on Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 2:01:55 PM, says, I think in relation to an earlier post by me:

"2. Re: the two women being Wikileaks volunteers.
This is hardly a smoking gun, nor does it lend weight
to the idea that these allegations form a conspiracy.
It is possible, but cannot be construed as proof without
corroborating evidence. It is equally likely they joined
Wikileaks out of admiration for the organisation's work,
and met Mr Assange socially through this."

Agreed.

However, Geoff of Perth's post of Thursday, 9 December 2010 at 4:46:08 PM, as can be seen from my subsequent posts of Friday, 10 December 2010 at 8:23:06 AM and Friday, 10 December 2010 at 8:25:03 AM, caught my attention.

As it happens, I have 'followed' Brian Howes on Twitter since before then-Deputy-PM Julia Gillard published what turned out to be the vanguard OLO Topic of the Month for October 2009, 'Personal Epiphanies' article, 'Driven by indignation at injustice' (See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9513 and http://bit.ly/gRHgyy ) on 5 October 2009. It is serendipitous that this December's Featured Topic, 'Blowing the whistle', has found such internationally topical focus in Wikileaks.

Unsurprisingly, facing extradition from the UK to the US himself, Brian Howes has maintained an active interest in the attempt to extradite Julian Assange from the UK to Sweden. One of Howes' tweets (now missing?) contained a link to a tweet purporting to be by one of the two alleged complainants in the Swedish sexual improprieties matter for which Assange's extradition is sought, in which she referred to herself as having some claimed involvement with the CIA.

I obviously have no way of knowing whether the tweet I viewed was really made by one of the persons in question, nor, if it was, that the claim of being in some way a CIA operative was in any way true. However, it was out there, in the public domain, and I saw it.

Corroborating evidence for thinking conspiracy?

The following is a link to the timeline of Julian Assange's visit to Sweden and the events that followed.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/13/rundle-timeline-of-assanges-visit-to-sweden-and-events-that-followed/

Ever notice how in the news spies and sex seem to be interlinked. I know Julian isn't a spy, but he did published leaked information.

Maybe the media likes these kind things, to bring some excitment to the lives of boring people.

It's a longshot to think this material just happened to fall into his hands.
He will be in trouble for quite some time. Stolen material don't mean freedom of press. What makes this bloke a journalist. I think he has got terrorist leanings

Well I thought it was a good article, but I didn't know it was an
Interpol warrant. Because there is no outstanding warrant against
Julian in Sweden? Yet? So without being charged and any prosecution
papers served on him, how can his lawyers prepare any defense? He hasn't murdered anyone, or is a sought after terrorist.

My mind boggles too, as reported in the media, one woman claims he didn't use a condom, after having consented to sex, while she was asleep?

Where's the evidence madam, he didn't use a condom if you were asleep, had a DNA test immediately after wards to prove this? Gosh the mind boggles? Any reasonable defense counsel and especially
Geoffrey Robertson, and why wait so long before making allegations.
After Julian was associated with leaks, that are far from him being
charged with anything illegal. Can you see anyone with intelligence
forcing this, when the media are all focused on this. I can't.
But competition websites are now opening and getting on the gravy train, that might target other than the West. So wait for more astounding leaks, eh? A tit for tat against other countries other than the US of A.

The Swedish prosecutors have appealed the court's decision to grant him bail. An the appeal has to be served by tomorrow. Thursday.
And if I know British Justice, the appeal will be dismissed.

Wikileeks is just another furfee, he wasn't charged over anything to do with this. And if anyone doesn't see the stupidity of these Swedish charges, can't rule out some kind of comspiracy to warn him
to belt up or else.

My impression is the the allegations are at the low end of the scale by the standards of sexual assault. That does not make them Ok but it does give cause for concern over the treatment of someone who at this point should still be considered innocent.

According to media reports the Swedish government is pushing to have Assange held in custody until his next hearing in February. The banks have supposedly frozen his accounts making it difficult to pay his bail money (assuming that he beats the challenge by the Swed's.

Given that he handed himself in to authorities the idea that he should be held in custody for around 2 months seem way out of line. Assuming that his arrest is not at all related to the other business then in what way is it just to jail someone for two month's without trial and with no clear risk to the public?

R0bert

Robert, bail has been offered by celebrities, but they have to present
it in cash. If they do, and there is no reason why they can't his
bail conditions, already quite stringent, should be upheld.

Keep faith in Geoffrey Robertson, look he has enough cash to pay the bail money himself if needed.

I've written to the Swedish Ambassador in Australia. email: sweden@iimetro.com.au. I complained his stringent bail conditions are quite severe anyway, precluding him running away. That I believe is the basis of the Swede's appeal against his bail being granted.

The charges, well no one knows for sure exactly what shape these charges are contrived? Without knowing this his defense team can't
prepare a proper defense case?

Look have faith in the British legal system. I mean if it wasn't so serious and the association with the embarrassing Wikileaks to various
governments, this alleged 'rape' charge would be funny.

If the woman/women were so alarmed at him not wearing a condom, why didn't they do something immediately after wards. Had he been a willful transmitter of a STD or HIV, then I would be worried, especially when the law in my land was on my side. And that works both ways too! But these events date back to August? And where are the DNA tests to prove he didn't use a condom. Could have been another man for all we know. Weak case and one that Geoffrey Robertson will tear apart.

Geoffrey Robertson described the allegations as "flimsy".
I agree, that if it wasn't so serious it would be amusing. I wonder how many other Swedish condom crimes are on the Interpol books?

Here's an article giving a good commentary on Assange's legal situation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/15/3094018.htm

Like I've said before,
I can't wait for the movie.

Well write to the Swedish Ambassador in Australia. email: sweden@iimentro.com.au. And complain - politely of course.

I'm waiting for tomorrow's court case to hear if the Swedish prosecutors
appeal is upheld or dismissed. I feel it will be dismissed, and Julian be left to retreat to his protector's estate in Suffolk. And enjoy roast pheasant and good wine with his family and friends for Christmas. And stuff all those Swedes who appear to be dancing to
the US of A's dictates.

The Swedish complaint is absolutely stupid. Not wearing a condom? How many cases do they hear in Sweden of this same complaint. Being a country well known for over 5 decades as being sexually liberal and approving abortion before other countries legalized it, it is a joke!

And when in the western democratic world has any man or woman been held in solitary confinement when no charges have been laid officially, (and can't lodge a formal defense?) isn't the rule of law
innocent until proven guilty. Maybe not in the US of A, but certainly in Australia and UK.

Bush bunny posts on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 at 9:10:56 PM:

"And when in the western democratic world has
any man or woman been held in solitary confinement
when no charges have been laid officially, (and can't
lodge a formal defense?) isn't the rule of law
innocent until proven guilty. Maybe not in the
US of A, but certainly in Australia and UK."

It would be helpful to the making of whatever point it is that Bush bunny wanted to make on this fairly important subject to first read the thread before posting. So far as I can make out, this poster is trying to express some naive faith in what is being held out to be the quality of British justice in the present day, saying such things as: "Look have faith in the British legal system". If Bush bunny had read my post of Friday, 10 December 2010 at 8:25:03 AM, s/he would know that a UK citizen was arrested in the UK and held in custody WITHOUT CHARGE for over 200 days in 2008, simply because the US had requested his extradition to face charges in the US for something that was quite lawful in the UK.

Bush bunny, if you truly do hold high hopes as to the quality of justice in the UK in relation to this matter, reading the post I have referenced should show the extent to which the 'political establishment' within the UK, through the Extradition Act (UK) 2003, has so thoroughgoingly betrayed Britain's legal and constitutional heritage. It must be galling in the extreme for Brian Howes, a UK citizen in his own country, to not even have a right to an extradition hearing of the like to which Assange, sought at this point by Sweden rather than by the US directly, appears entitled.

All that being said, I believe individuals within the justice apparatus in the UK have been doing all that they can within the law to 'give the finger' to their political masters.

I, too, hope Assange gets bail today.

Fox news interviewed a spokeperson from the Getup petition two days ago after. They accused Assange of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity".

A very suspect self duplicity is needed to believe Assange's arrest is simply the innocent machinations of the Swedish legal system.

An even greater duplicity is necessary to argue against the release of these "sensitive" documents. We remain involved in two wars in the middle-east. Both dubious wars with no clear objectives. In our name children continue to be orphaned, maimed, and dismembered. The documents reveal continuing complicity in torture by US troops.

We are now allied with a rogue state which has entirely abandoned its own constitutional principles. This is a state in relative decline desperate and over-reaching to sustain its hegemony.

The Assange arrest is a symptom of this over-reach by the US, and its craven allies. J. Gillard's comments on this are not errors or misjudgements, they are policy. Any watering down of these conclusions is merely putting your head in the sand.

The author of this article has attempted to protect the US relationship by promoting: move along people, there is nothing to see here. But the disconnect between what our media protray and what people think is becoming an ever larger chasm.

The authors of spin when confronted with raw data from "wikileaks" files become disorientated. The prepared scripts and narratives don't fit the reality. Now that is why they are really angry with Assange.

Yebiga,

He's out. He's able to walk the streets. Get used to it.

Damn, there goes a potential martyr >:(

So justice seems to be taking its course. What's that, he still won't get a fair trial ? All trials are rigged ? Down with all trials ?

Meanwhile, Liu Xiao Bo can only dream of a trial, while he spends the next eleven years contemplating his request for freedom of speech.

Is that one of the freedoms that Assange is still free to practice ?

Perhaps, if you are looking for a martyr, you could try looking in Liu's direction :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth

Guess we should be grateful that we're all not incarcerated like Liu Xiao. Is that the point you are making?

I guess we should all be grateful for our daily bread and our shelter because we and our children aren't being dismembered in Iraq, Afghanistan or many other parts of the world.

Because you know those terrorists could be next door, around the corner or under your bed. But the truth is there are terrorists, really bad terrorist. We can never find them because the global terrorist are our allies the USofA and us - its us all along!

Cry treason

Yebiga,

So we pull out of Afghanistan and leave it to the Islamists ? Is there another way you know of ? Please share.

Yes, it's a nasty world, full of all manner of b@stards. Would that it were not, that every person was just a slightly soiled angel.

But you work with the cards you've got.

Leave Afghanistan to the Taliban ? Yes ? No ?

Joe

What exactly is an Islamist?
This is the rhetoric of Fox News.

Remember the supposed 19 terrorist hijackers - 17 were apparently Saudi's. The wikileaks documents reveal that US intelligence is openly aware that the Suadi's fund 90% of all the global terrorist activity!

My dear loudmouth - pause a moment - who has benefitted from all these terrorist activities? Who has made money and who has suffered.

Iraq has what 30% plus of world oil reserves and Afghanistan provides the world with 90% of its Heroin. It was in fact the Taliban who had significantly reduced poppy production. The US occupation has restored production to their pre-taliban days. You can be proud of our troops achievements.

The nasty people in the world are in the mirror - all you have to do is look.

This post has gone completely off-topic. If it doesn't get back on topic I will delete posts. Graham Y Moderator

Sorry, Graham.

Both Assange and Liu Xiao Bo deserve fair trials, they should be an integral part of modern, civilized societies.

My point, Yebiga, was that Assange seems to be being treated as one might expect: he has been accused of committing fairly serious offences, arrested and bailed.

Meanwhile, Liu Xiao Bo has repeatedly asked, campaigned for, written about, the most basic freedoms, of speech and assembly, for the people of his country, and has simply asked that his government observe its own laws. He hasn't broken any laws. But he gets no trial and eleven years. His wife gets arrested and taken God-knows-where simply because she is his wife.

Assange is likely to get a well-publicised trial: Geoffrey Robertson alone will guarantee that.

Liu Xiao Bo gets no trial. I suppose a Nobel Peace Prize is some consolation, though.

What an opportunity it would be for open government and respect for human rights and free speech, to campaign for them both simultaneously :)

Can Get-Up walk and chew at the same time ?

Joe

With respect to the arrest of Assange, it is interesting, with the passage of but little time, to re-evaluate some observations I made upon another thread in relation to this matter. ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4159#104640 ) I had said therein:

"It is interesting seeing the lawyer acting on behalf
of the Swedish authorities attempting to put words in
the [UK] bail hearing court's mouth, reported thus:

"Lawyer Gemma Lindfield, on behalf of the Swedish
authorities, reminded the court during the hearing
it had "already found that Mr Assange is a flight
risk". She said: "It's submitted that nothing has
changed since last week to allay the court's fears
in this regard.""

Interesting the focus upon Assange being a 'flight risk'
when he surrendered himself to UK authorities in the first
place, isn't it?

Are the words 'flight risk' echos of the language habitually
used with respect to persons sought for extradition to the US
that describes such as 'fugitives' in advance of any conviction,
by any chance? The slight difference in terminology a result
of sequential US English/Swedish/UK English translations of
diplomatic communications, perhaps?"




Now to learn that Gemma Lindfield, an officer of that UK court, was in reality acting on behalf of the (UK) Crown Prosecution Service, after her having deceived, or permitted the deception of, other officers of that same court in the persons of those appearing as counsel on behalf of Julian Assange, the accused, in such a way as to lay the responsibility for the appealing against the first granting of bail against those representing the Kingdom of Sweden, when it was in reality the government of the UK that sought that denial of bail!

What an utter shameful disgrace upon British justice, or, more correctly, the 'political master class' who these days misdirect it!

I can only wonder as to why the CPS thought it had any right to seek to deny bail to an Australian citizen who had voluntarily surrendered to UK authorities, in a way that was at the expense of the reputation of the Kingdom of Sweden, a friendly power.

Forrest,

This is a link to a Swedish site concerning the CPS's role in challenging bail.

Swedish DPP Keir Stamer said, "The Crown Prosecution Service acts here as agents of the government seeking extradition, in this case the Swedish Government."

http://www.thelocal.se/30888/20101216/

Poirot,

Thank you for the link to the Swedish website. ( http://www.thelocal.se/30888/20101216/ ) That link is to a newspaper, 'The Local: Sweden's News in English'.

You have made two (perhaps understandable) errors in summarizing the link's contents.

The first is that you have misidentified the Director of Public Prosecutions mentioned in the news item as being a Swedish DPP. The DPP being reported upon in the news item is in fact the UK DPP.

The second error is that you have mis-spelled the name of that DPP as 'Stamer'. The surname is in fact reported as 'Starmer' in the news item. I'll grant that to Australian eyes the name 'Keir Starmer' could give an impression of perhaps being a Swedish name.

Having cleared that up, what is interesting in the news item is this:

"A spokesman for the [UK] Crown Prosecution Service
told AFP: "We did take the decision to oppose bail
without consulting the Swedish authorities, but that
is absolutely standard practice."

He said it was common in extradition cases for British
lawyers to take decisions on the course of action to be
followed without consulting the country which issued
the arrest warrant -- in this case Sweden."

Would it be churlish of me to question, the above being the case, whether the decision of the previously incumbent 'political master class' to incarcerate Brian Howes (still detained in Scotland under similar conditions as now apply to Assange) for 214 days WITHOUT CHARGE, let alone extradition hearing, was a decision made entirely at such UK 'lawyers' discretion, or was made because it arose out of the terms (HSPD-6?) under which the UK Extradition Act 2003 was framed?

If, as I suspect, it was the latter, does the exercise of this claimed 'lawyers discretion' to seek the denial of bail in the Assange case reflect an attempt to (wrongly) apply the strictures applicable to the extradition of a person in UK custody TO THE US, rather than those applying to the constitutional monarchy that is the Kingdom of Sweden, to Assange?

Was the first (rejected) Interpol warrant even raised in Sweden?

Thanks for that, Forrest,

You're right that I thought I would wing it that Keir Starmer was Swedish - that's what I get for rushing a post.
Still, it's fascinating to try and analyse the unfolding machinations involved here.
Where is the Swedish evidence?

And why isn't Briah Howes out on bail ? Is he a flight risk ? Did he have 'no fixed address' before his jailing ?

Well I have just had a reply from the Swedish Government, and they said
they had not laid any charges against Julian, sent me their sexual act
info. Also added they had no plans to do what some have said to relay
Julian via Sweden to the USA. (Then why appeal against his bail?)

I know he is out, but ... they added, they have never been asked by the US of A to send anyone to the US from Sweden.

Well - read into that what you will. Personally, he has Geoffrey
Robertson on his side, and he's a specialist in human rights. Although the vice president of the USA said today, that he considered Assange as an IT 'Terrorist'. What's that for goodness sake?

If they pursue that line, and added 'People now wont see me, unless
I'm alone?" Weak, weak weak, they are embarrassed by Wikileaks
and want to save face. In my opinion