September 13, 2012

Jury used to hide facts DUers dislike

Here's the post:

Assange: US has "given tacit approval for attacks on embassies"
By Toby Manhire
Published on September 13, 2012

... whatever you think of the WikiLeaks founder, who is currently sheltering in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, it's hard to fathom his latest tweeted statement, in which he asserts some sort of link between the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, in which the American ambassador was killed, and his own treatment.

The tweet:

By the US accepting the UK siege on the Ecuadorian embassy in London it gave tacit approval for attacks on embassies around the world ...

Loyal Assange supporter Jemima Khan had the best response:

That last @wikileaks tweet manages to be both absurd and shockingly offensive & I say that as a wikileaks supporter ...

http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/assange-us-has-given-tacit-approval-for-attacks-on-embassies/

It is entirely an excerpt from a post at The New Zealand Listener: that post includes screenshots of the original tweet (which was removed and replaced)



and



Note that Jemima Khan is one of the individuals who put up bail for Assange:

... One of Julian Assange's most prominent supporters, Jemima Khan, has said she would like to see the WikiLeaks founder, who has made an asylum bid to avoid extradition to Sweden, confront the rape allegations made against him by two Swedish women. The socialite and charity fundraiser, who faces losing the £20,000 she put towards his bail money after Assange took refuge at the Ecuadorean embassy in London and sought political asylum, said on Twitter that the women deserved a response to their allegations. She wrote: "For the record, in response to those asking about Assange & bail money.... I personally would like to see Assange confront the rape allegations in Sweden and the 2 women at the centre have a right to a response" ... Earlier this week, she voiced her surprise at Assange's asylum bid, writing on Twitter that she had "expected him to face the allegations" ...
Jemima Khan 'would like to see Julian Assange confront rape allegations'
Socialite who donated to WikiLeaks founder's bail money also defends him over fears of extradition to US
David Batty
Thursday 21 June 2012 19.54 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/22/jemima-khan-julian-assange-allegations

Here's the jury decision:

Assange: US has “given tacit approval for attacks on embassies”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021330806

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

The claim that Assange said this is a lie and has already lead many people in the thread to wrongfully believe this. This is nothing more than a deceitful attempt at character assasination.

This post (and similar ones by the same poster I should add) also violates TOS according to the following paragraph:

"Don't go overboard with the crazy talk.
Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact."

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Sep 13, 2012, 10:56 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While I cannot but agree that OP is "kook and crackpot peddling paranoid fantasies" it's better to leave it for number of reasons.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Maybe I'm not up the latest about Wikileaks, but this didn't seem that hurtful to me, nor intended to be hurtful. It's just a news report. If it's inaccurate, then it's easy enough to point that, or post another thread to rebut it with the truth, whatever that is.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: s4p really jumped the shark on this one. These anti-Assange folks are going to desperate lengths to try to smear him, it seems. It's borderline OCD -- someone needs to see a shrink, methinks.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

September 7, 2012

Mark Weisbrot's Shame

Mark Weisbrot has put up a bit at al-Jazeera, entitled Sweden's Shame, in which he regurgitates (yet again) a number of the demonstrably false factoids popular among the Assangists. Here's the link to his drivel:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129674125619411.html

Most obviously, (Weisbrot writes) Sweden has had the opportunity to interview Assange in the UK, but has repeatedly refused to do so. The Swedish government also refused Ecuador's offer to interview Assange at its London embassy. As in the past, no justification was offered

But the facts by now are crystal clear. Swedish authorities interviewed Assange on 31 August 2010 and reopened a rape investigation on 1 September 2010. Swedish authorities were repeatedly in contact with Assange's lawyer in Sweden, while Assange was still in Sweden, in September 2010, trying to arrange further interrogation of him, in order to move forward with a prosecution of him in Sweden. When it was made clear to Assange's lawyer, that the authorities intended to detain his client, Assange immediately left the country for the UK. The interrogation, that the Swedish authorities seek, is not simply a matter of asking questions: the UK courts have held that the interrogation is part and parcel of the Swedish prosecutorial process and have further held that Sweden's request, for Assange's extradition to be interrogated, is nothing other than a request for Assange to be handed over for prosecution. The original arrest order for Assange was issued by a Swedish court, and Assange's lawyers appealed that unsuccessfully twice in Sweden. The Swedish court's arrest order means that the next step in the Swedish process against Assange is to take him into custody for interrogation. The Swedish court's arrest order predates the international arrest warrant that Assange fought (for over a year and a half) in the UK courts. The Swedish authoritories do not now owe Assange, or Weisbrot, or anyone else, further explanation or justification: they have prevailed in Swedish courts, and in the UK courts, and Assange has jumped bail to avoid extradition to Sweden, which had requested his extradition expressly for the purpose of prosecution

The Swedish government (says Weisbrot further) also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the US. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the UK, for that matter) to arrange. Once again, the Swedish government offered no reason for its refusal to consider this obvious solution to the diplomatic impasse.

It is unclear why Ecuador believes it can properly concern itself this matter at all, insofar as Assange is an Australian citizen, not an Ecuadorian citizen, who is not in instant danger in the UK and who faces no instant danger in Sweden: Australian consular staff attended all of his court dates, and Assange repeatedly refused any contact with his country's diplomats, even as his lawyers complained to the press that Australia was refusing to help him. Ecuador made no application to intervene in the UK lawsuit on the warrant. Nor did Assange's lawyers attempt any serious discussion of this strange forward-extradition theory in the UK lawsuit: the only testimony touching on the subject came from one of Assange's own witnesses who testified that forward-extradition to the US was flat-out impossible. Both Swedish and UK authorities have pointed out repeatedly, for more than a year, that forward-extradition to the US from Sweden would require approval from the UK and could be challenged in both the Swedish and UK courts

And it is unclear why Assange, who is (after all) a man who has lost his friends hundreds of thousands of pounds in bail, by refusing to honor his own guarantees, thinks himself in a position to demand guarantees from others. Given the Assangist accusations against Sweden, it is also entirely clear that nothing, either Sweden or the UK could say, will produce any response from the Assange camp except further noisy accusations of bad faith and dishonesty. So the governments of Sweden and of the UK would gain no advantage from pointless guarantees about purely hypothetical situations

If the Swedish government really wanted to pursue the investigation of sexual offence allegations against Assange (Weisbrot tells us) they could do so. But instead, they are deliberately abandoning the criminal investigation - which is getting older and more difficult to pursue - for other reasons.

The Swedish prosecutors are pursuing a sexual offense prosecution of Assange. That is why there is a Swedish court order for his arrest. That is why there is an international warrant for his arrest. The UK courts have consistently held that the purpose of extradition to Sweden is prosecution. The matter is "getting older and more difficult to pursue" simply because Assange suddenly left Sweden, then fought his extradition in the UK courts for a year and a half, and finally jumped bail

This also casts serious doubt (Weisbrot continues) on all the people who have opposed Assange's asylum on the grounds that they care about the two women who have accused Assange. (It is worth noting that neither of the two women accused Assange of rape, although that is one of the allegations that has been spread throughout the media and the world). Anyone who was really concerned about pursuing this case would aim their fire at the Swedish prosecutor, and at least ask her why she has abandoned the investigation

The UK courts have determined the international warrant, for Assange's arrest, was issued for the purposes of prosecution on various charges including rape. The claim that no one complained of rape is another standard Assangist fiction. Weisbrot shows a particularly flexible attitude towards reality by reading the fact, that Assange jumped bail to avoid extradition to Sweden for prosecution, as proof that the Swedish prosecutor has abandoned the matter

... "The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my testimony to support her story" ...
– Den andra kvinnan ville anmäla för våldtäkt. Jag gav min berättelse som vittnesmål till hennes berättelse och för att stötta henne.
30-åriga kvinnan: Jag utsattes för övergrepp
Berättar om anklagelserna mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange
http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7652935.ab

Weisbrot might want to familiarize himself with the record more thoroughly before he continues vacuously yammering his Assangist talking-points

September 7, 2012

Your timeline is also wrong:

20 August 2010 The Swedish Prosecutor's Office issues an arrest warrant for Julian Assange ...
21 August 2010 The arrest warrant is withdrawn ...
31 August 2010 Mr Assange is questioned by police for about an hour in Stockholm ...
1 September 2010 Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says she is reopening the rape investigation against Mr Assange ... Ms Ny is also head of the department that oversees prosecution of sex crimes ...

Timeline: sexual allegations against Assange in Sweden
16 August 2012 Last updated at 10:31 ET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

The investigation continued after withdrawal of the original arrest warrant, and the investigation into the rape allegation was re-opened by the top person who oversees prosecution of sex crimes on the day after Assange's 31 August 2010 interview with the police

September 3, 2012

Why the “zombie facts” of Assange supporters are wrong (New Statesman)

The legal mythology of the extradition of Julian Assange
By David Allen Green
Published 03 September 2012 10:34

... it may be possible that there is a subjective fear of being extradited to the United States from Sweden, based on the mistaken belief that it would be easy to extradite him to the United States. However, as set out above, even if the United States can get round the First Amendment, Assange would have protections under the Swedish-United States treaty, under ECHR and EU law, and under the domestic law of both Sweden and England. Nonetheless, if he has that fear then this mistaken belief may be sincerely held.

But even taking any subjective fears at their very highest, unless and until there is any extradition request by the United States, then due process of an investigation into allegations of rape and sexual abuse in Sweden must be the priority, and Assange should return to face the accusations. As it stands the criminal investigation is frustrated and unresolved. And complainants of rape and sexual abuse have rights too.

Then there is the rational explanation. In view of the significant protections he would have against onward extradition to the United States from Sweden, it would appear that the only rational (as opposed to subjective) explanation for his refusal is not that he is seeking to avoid any onwards extradition; it is that he simply wants to avoid interrogation and any prosecution for allegations of sexual assault and rape in Sweden.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange

A long careful accurate discussion of the facts and the nonsense surrounding the extradition

September 3, 2012

Wypijewski's piece shows just how much analytical power the Left has lost, by abandoning

historical materialism in favor of smug rhetorical tricks

"The law" (Wypijewski smirks) "is no more capable of delivering justice in <Assange's> case today than it was for a black man alleged to have raped a white woman in the Jim Crow South." She adds: "I am not comparing the founder of WikiLeaks .. with black men on the other side of a lynch mob." But she does make exactly that comparison, at the same time she denies it: "The Scottsboro Boys might have been innocent or they might have been guilty; it didn’t matter, because either way the result would be the same." This dishonest gambit is called apophasis -- and it never adds anything of value to a discussion

The Scottsboro defendants were nine black hobos, riding a freight through Alabama in the early spring of 1931. The youngest was twelve and none was as old as twenty. They were accused of rape and, going to trial within two weeks, all but the youngest was sentenced to death almost immediately by the jury

They were, in fact, lucky not to have been lynched soon after they disembarked the train, having been protected first by the sheriff and later by the National Guard. From 1921 to 1930, there were at least 275 lynchings in the US -- and 90% of the victims were black. It is sometimes tempting to gloss that long ugly thread of Americana, simply as the unkind treatment of a minority group by the majority -- but an examination of the class interests involved shows something else: Jim Crow was an economic system. Antebellum slavery had provided easily-identifiable underclass to exploit and had mystified the exploitation with an elaborate racial ideology. Jim Crow later retained both the underclass and the mythologies used to justify its exploitation, although legal slavery itself was replaced by other forms, such as share-cropping, debt-bondage, and prisoner chain-gang labor. Like slavery before it, Jim Crow depended on violence and unequal protection of the laws. The lynching of black Americans, always without consequence for the perpetrators, was not simply a matter of white people being unpleasant to blacks: it served a distinct purpose in the economic structure, conveying a message to the underclass that their lives simply did not count and that resistance could lead only to pain and death. The violence of the Jim Crow lynchings was a result of carefully-crafted hatred, but it was not merely a result of hatred: it was also an explosive result of the psychological tensions and contradictions required to maintain the irrational ideological views associated with the entire system of oppression

Comparisons with the Assange affair are ridiculous and become more distasteful each time Wypijewski makes such a comparison while simultaneously disavowing the comparison. If Assange's case had resembled in any way the experience of the Scottsboro Nine, he would already have been sentenced to death twice by now

September 2, 2012

The Assange defense lied about that in UK court, and the UK court caught them lying:

... In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days <after 15th September> I telephoned <Ms Ny> a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight ...

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong ...

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave ...

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

September 2, 2012

"... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA

... There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition to the United States of America, then article 28 of the framework decision applies. In such an event the consent of the Secretary of State in this country will be required, in accordance with section 58 of the Extradition Act 2003, before Sweden can order Mr Assange’s extradition to a third State. The Secretary of State is required to give notice to Mr Assange unless it is impracticable to do so. Mr Assange would have the protection of the courts in Sweden and, as the Secretary of State’s decision can be reviewed, he would have the protection of the English courts also. But none of this was argued ..."

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons

If Assange had wanted to argue that in court, he was free to do so. He did not -- because the theory is so ridiculous that one of his own specialist witnesses testified against the possibility

September 2, 2012

"... David Coombs, a lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, ... said Manning was confined in such a way

to prevent anything bad from happening to him ..."
Lawyers in WikiLeaks Case Argue Over Email Access
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
FORT MEADE, Md. August 28, 2012 (AP)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-soldiers-wikileaks-case-back-military-court-17093558

September 2, 2012

The Assange defense lied about that in UK court, and the UK court caught them lying:

... In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days <after 15th September> I telephoned <Ms Ny> a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight ...

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong ...

In re-examination he confirmed that he did not know Mr Assange was leaving Sweden on 27th September and first learned he was abroad on 29th. He agreed that the mistakes he had made in his proof were embarrassing and that shouldn’t have happened. He also agreed that it is important that what he says is right and important for his client that his evidence is credible.

The witness had to leave to catch a flight. Miss Montgomery said that there were further challenges she could make to his evidence, but thought it unnecessary in the circumstances. That was accepted by the court after no point was taken by Mr Robertson. The witness was clearly uncomfortable and anxious to leave ...

City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court)
The judicial authority in Sweden -v- Julian Paul Assange
Findings of facts and reasons