Assange Watch

[Little John]

Like it

Like it a lot

[RenewableCandy]

I really wish I could put this clearly enough...leaving aside the sophistry, it's quite simple: a rape case that has (in all probability) been brought for political reasons, is being used as an excuse by a lot of commentators to imply that other cases which have only superficial similarities with this one, are not genuine, or not worth pursuing.

This does NOT constitute an argument for sending Assange to Sweden, because other stakes are too high. But imho it would do everybody a favour if the matter were cleared up somehow.

RC. The world has, sadly, it's fair share of woman hating, misogynistic men. It also has its fair share of men hating women masquerading under the guise of reflexive feminism and a high profile case such as this will inevitably bring both of them out of the woodwork

Neither of which have got anything to do with whether Assange is or is not guilty of a sexual offence in Sweden and neither of which have got anything to do with why these allegations have been investigated in the deeply spurious way in which they have.

Assange stayed in Sweden during the first investigation. He continued to stay in Sweden following the reopening of the investigation at the behest of a prosecutor/politician with strong diplomatic ties to the Yanks. For a full five weeks in total. During the second investigation he volunteered to be questioned at a police station by the second prosecutor. This prosecutor then leaked the contents of that interview to the press in contravention of all Swedish protocols on such matters. AA also, during this time, went to the press. This is a woman whose identity we now must, apparently, protect at all cost because she is a rape victim. Assange was then given full permission to leave Sweden. Only after he left was he "arrested in absence" for further questioning. I know the term "arrested in absence" sounds pretty weird, but that is, apparently what the Swedish law allows for. No explanation has been given for why this happened and why they did not simply question him before he left and before they gave him permission to leave. Coincidentally, though, this arrest warrant was issued the day before Cablegate. began to be leaked.

In addition to all of the above, Assange has repeatedly offered on the record that he is more than willing to answer any and all allegations against him on the proviso that either he is questioned in the UK prior to any charges being brought or that if he goes to be questioned in Sweden he will be given a guarantee that he will not indited to the US. To date, the Swedish authorities have refused both offers and have given absolutely no reasons for their refusal.

Yes, it would indeed do everyone a favour if this was cleared up quickly. However, that is quite clearly not what the Swedish authorities want. The pertinent question is why?

I think we both know the answer to that question and it has got bugger all to do with misogyny, though the various authorities' interests are no doubt well served by having the hand-wringing, chattering classes tie themselves up in ideological knots over such things instead of focussing on the substantive issues.

Those substantive issues, lest we forget, are the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people by the millions, whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of being born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that leaked information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

I think this post, though it doesn't say anything that isn't the case, demonstrates quite eloquently that you seem to have missed the entire point of what I have been trying to say. Please have another go at reading PennyRed's column: it's a bit of a rant, but what she is having a problem with is not the Assange case specifically, but that many people's responses to the MSN "character-assassination" you mention constitute insults to rape victims in general (not just to the 2 women in the case).

She (and I) think this is an ugly turn of events.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think this post, though it doesn't say anything that isn't the case, demonstrates quite eloquently that you seem to have missed the entire point of what I have been trying to say. Please have another go at reading PennyRed's column: it's a bit of a rant, but what she is having a problem with is not the Assange case specifically, but that many people's responses to the MSN "character-assassination" you mention constitute insults to rape victims in general (not just to the 2 women in the case).

Surely what insults real rape victims - and makes it harder for them to get justice - is women who allege rape when no such thing has happened, either for malicious reasons or, as in this case, for political reasons. These women were not raped. You do not take a person who raped you to a crayfish party the next evening and recommend your friend have sex with him. This is debasement of the term "rape", as pointed out by George Galloway. I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for these women whatsoever.

[biffvernon]

They're just prawns in the USA's game.

[Little John]

I really wish I could put this clearly enough...leaving aside the sophistry, it's quite simple: a rape case that has (in all probability) been brought for political reasons, is being used as an excuse by a lot of commentators to imply that other cases which have only superficial similarities with this one, are not genuine, or not worth pursuing.

This does NOT constitute an argument for sending Assange to Sweden, because other stakes are too high. But imho it would do everybody a favour if the matter were cleared up somehow.

RC. The world has, sadly, it's fair share of woman hating, misogynistic men. It also has its fair share of men hating women masquerading under the guise of reflexive feminism and a high profile case such as this will inevitably bring both of them out of the woodwork

Neither of which have got anything to do with whether Assange is or is not guilty of a sexual offence in Sweden and neither of which have got anything to do with why these allegations have been investigated in the deeply spurious way in which they have.

Assange stayed in Sweden during the first investigation. He continued to stay in Sweden following the reopening of the investigation at the behest of a prosecutor/politician with strong diplomatic ties to the Yanks. For a full five weeks in total. During the second investigation he volunteered to be questioned at a police station by the second prosecutor. This prosecutor then leaked the contents of that interview to the press in contravention of all Swedish protocols on such matters. AA also, during this time, went to the press. This is a woman whose identity we now must, apparently, protect at all cost because she is a rape victim. Assange was then given full permission to leave Sweden. Only after he left was he "arrested in absence" for further questioning. I know the term "arrested in absence" sounds pretty weird, but that is, apparently what the Swedish law allows for. No explanation has been given for why this happened and why they did not simply question him before he left and before they gave him permission to leave. Coincidentally, though, this arrest warrant was issued the day before Cablegate. began to be leaked.

In addition to all of the above, Assange has repeatedly offered on the record that he is more than willing to answer any and all allegations against him on the proviso that either he is questioned in the UK prior to any charges being brought or that if he goes to be questioned in Sweden he will be given a guarantee that he will not indited to the US. To date, the Swedish authorities have refused both offers and have given absolutely no reasons for their refusal.

Yes, it would indeed do everyone a favour if this was cleared up quickly. However, that is quite clearly not what the Swedish authorities want. The pertinent question is why?

I think we both know the answer to that question and it has got bugger all to do with misogyny, though the various authorities' interests are no doubt well served by having the hand-wringing, chattering classes tie themselves up in ideological knots over such things instead of focussing on the substantive issues.

Those substantive issues, lest we forget, are the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people by the millions, whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of being born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that leaked information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

I think this post, though it doesn't say anything that isn't the case, demonstrates quite eloquently that you seem to have missed the entire point of what I have been trying to say. Please have another go at reading PennyRed's column: it's a bit of a rant, but what she is having a problem with is not the Assange case specifically, but that many people's responses to the MSN "character-assassination" you mention constitute insults to rape victims in general (not just to the 2 women in the case).

She (and I) think this is an ugly turn of events.

We are in agreement then.

It is, indeed, an ugly turn of events. An unnecessary turn of events. A perfectly timed, authority-orchestrated, MSM-driven turn of events.

Oh how useful we are.....

[Little John]

They're just prawns in the USA's game.

The other one sounds like a pawn. AA sounds like something a little more than that. But only a little. Though, I'm guessing.

But, then, neither I nor anyone else would need to guess if Sweden chose to come to the UK to question him or chose to assure him that he was not going to be extradited to the USA if he went there to be questioned.....

[biffvernon]

They're just prawns in the USA's game.

The other one sounds like a pawn. AA sounds like something a little more than that. But only a little. Though, I'm guessing.

But, then, neither I nor anyone else would need to guess if Sweden chose to come to the UK to question him or chose to assure him that he was not going to be extradited to the USA if he went there to be questioned.....

Doh, let me explain to Steve and other readers who missed the 'r' in prawns. The previous post discussed crayfish and in the long-standing tradition of PS...oh why bother...

Glenn Greenwald has another powerful article in the Guardian criticising the New Statesman piece that got so much wrong:

The New Statesman owes its readers a correction for a clear and crucial falsehood contained in this much-cited argument by its legal correspondent, David Allen Green. As I noted on Wednesday, Green purported to debunk what he called "common misconceptions" and "myths" being spread by supporters of Ecuador's asylum decision in the Assange case, but in doing so, he propagated his own myth on the key question in this matter. By doing so, he misled large numbers of readers not only at the New Statesman but in many other venues which cited his claims. Regardless of one's views on the asylum matter, nobody should want clear errors on the central issues to be left standing in major media outlets.

The falsehood here is clear and straightforward. One of the "myths" Green purported to debunk was that "Sweden should guarantee that there be no extradition to USA." Assange's lawyers, along with Ecuadorean officials, have repeatedly told Sweden and Britain that Assange would immediately travel to Stockholm to face these allegations if some type of satisfactory assurance against extradition to the US could be given. This is the paramount issue because it shows that it is not Assange and Ecuadorean officials – but rather the Swedish and British governments – who are preventing the sex assault allegations from being fairly and legally resolved as they should be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... xtradition

[emordnilap]

Interesting and just one of the reasons why Ron Paul stood little chance of being president.

And, sadly, another no-hoper.

[snow hope]

The world has, sadly, it's fair share of woman hating, misogynistic men. It also has its fair share of men hating women masquerading under the guise of reflexive feminism and a high profile case such as this will inevitably bring both of them out of the woodwork

Neither of which have got anything to do with whether Assange is or is not guilty of a sexual offence in Sweden and neither of which have got anything to do with why these allegations have been investigated in the deeply spurious way in which they have.

Assange stayed in Sweden during the first investigation. He continued to stay in Sweden following the reopening of the investigation at the behest of a prosecutor/politician with strong diplomatic ties to the Yanks. For a full five weeks in total. During the second investigation he volunteered to be questioned at a police station by the second prosecutor. This prosecutor then leaked the contents of that interview to the press in contravention of all Swedish protocols on such matters. AA also, during this time, went to the press. This is a woman whose identity we now must, apparently, protect at all cost because she is a rape victim. Assange was then given full permission to leave Sweden. Only after he left was he "arrested in absence" for further questioning. I know the term "arrested in absence" sounds pretty weird, but that is, apparently what the Swedish law allows for. No explanation has been given for why this happened and why they did not simply question him before he left and before they gave him permission to leave. Coincidentally, though, this arrest warrant was issued the day before Cablegate. began to be leaked.

In addition to all of the above, Assange has repeatedly offered on the record that he is more than willing to answer any and all allegations against him on the proviso that either he is questioned in the UK prior to any charges being brought or that if he goes to be questioned in Sweden he will be given a guarantee that he will not indited to the US. To date, the Swedish authorities have refused both offers and have given absolutely no reasons for their refusal.

Yes, it would indeed do everyone a favour if this was cleared up quickly. However, that is quite clearly not what the Swedish authorities want. The pertinent question is why?

I think we both know the answer to that question and it has got bugger all to do with misogyny, though the various authorities' interests are no doubt well served by having the hand-wringing, chattering classes tie themselves up in ideological knots over such things instead of focussing on the substantive issues.

Those substantive issues, lest we forget, are the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people by the millions, whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of being born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that leaked information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

I have to complement you on this superb post Steve. It must be one of the best posts on PS as regards the use of the English Language. I counted three words I will have to look up in the dictionary. If I was marking this I would give it an A**. Well done man. As for the content, well I pretty much agree.

[Little John]

The world has, sadly, it's fair share of woman hating, misogynistic men. It also has its fair share of men hating women masquerading under the guise of reflexive feminism and a high profile case such as this will inevitably bring both of them out of the woodwork

Neither of which have got anything to do with whether Assange is or is not guilty of a sexual offence in Sweden and neither of which have got anything to do with why these allegations have been investigated in the deeply spurious way in which they have.

Assange stayed in Sweden during the first investigation. He continued to stay in Sweden following the reopening of the investigation at the behest of a prosecutor/politician with strong diplomatic ties to the Yanks. For a full five weeks in total. During the second investigation he volunteered to be questioned at a police station by the second prosecutor. This prosecutor then leaked the contents of that interview to the press in contravention of all Swedish protocols on such matters. AA also, during this time, went to the press. This is a woman whose identity we now must, apparently, protect at all cost because she is a rape victim. Assange was then given full permission to leave Sweden. Only after he left was he "arrested in absence" for further questioning. I know the term "arrested in absence" sounds pretty weird, but that is, apparently what the Swedish law allows for. No explanation has been given for why this happened and why they did not simply question him before he left and before they gave him permission to leave. Coincidentally, though, this arrest warrant was issued the day before Cablegate. began to be leaked.

In addition to all of the above, Assange has repeatedly offered on the record that he is more than willing to answer any and all allegations against him on the proviso that either he is questioned in the UK prior to any charges being brought or that if he goes to be questioned in Sweden he will be given a guarantee that he will not indited to the US. To date, the Swedish authorities have refused both offers and have given absolutely no reasons for their refusal.

Yes, it would indeed do everyone a favour if this was cleared up quickly. However, that is quite clearly not what the Swedish authorities want. The pertinent question is why?

I think we both know the answer to that question and it has got bugger all to do with misogyny, though the various authorities' interests are no doubt well served by having the hand-wringing, chattering classes tie themselves up in ideological knots over such things instead of focussing on the substantive issues.

Those substantive issues, lest we forget, are the pillaging, killing, torture and rape of people by the millions, whose only crime is to have had the misfortune of being born in oil rich parts of the world, by armed representatives of the most powerful empire on earth. It is about Wiki Leaks' part in exposing those heinous crimes against humanity and about the attempts by the political representatives of that empire to suppress the dissemination of that leaked information by any means. This includes the collusion of the MSM in this country and abroad in a character assassination of Assange so as to provide the necessary political cover in order to get Assange to the US and so make an example of him such that no citizen will ever dare stand up to that empire again.

I have to complement you on this superb post Steve. It must be one of the best posts on PS as regards the use of the English Language. I counted three words I will have to look up in the dictionary. If I was marking this I would give it an A**. Well done man. As for the content, well I pretty much agree.

That's very nice of you to say SH. Thank you.

However, after re-reading my post, I now realize that "indited" should have been "rendited"....

I think....

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Although purists might argue for 'rendered' I'd go with 'renditioned' as the purpose of language is to communicate not obfuscate.

But let's not quibble; an excellent and erudite post.

[emordnilap]

Although purists might argue for 'rendered' I'd go with 'renditioned' as the purpose of language is to communicate not obfuscate.

Agreed, though modern US aggression has engendered creative use of language in its attempt turn its real, physical effects into baby food for gullible gullets. I remember with affection the first time I heard an American refer to the beach as the 'land/sea interface'.

Even its (rendition) real meaning - torture by proxy - though less obfuscatory, is somehow anodyne.

But let's not quibble; an excellent and erudite post.

Agreed. Well unobfuscated, Steve.

[JohnB]

Interesting article about how the alleged rape has been handled very differently to almost every other case in Sweden.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... naomi-wolf

[emordnilap]

JA gets a visit from an MP!

But not, sadly, a Swedish or English one.

"Mr Assange was very pleased about my visit. I am amazed that I am the first MP to visit him," she added.

"I would like more of my colleagues from other countries to come over to London and seek a humanitarian solution to this crisis. We as parliamentarians should demand that our governments act.

"Unfortunately, the German government has taken no action to find a solution. I have informed Mr Assange about this deplorable fact."

[frank_begbie]

Billy Bragg was on Radio 4 this morning and just as part of a discussion with some other people, he said Assange should go back to Sweden and face the music.
In his opinion the Yanks wouldn't snatch him and take him back to the USA.

I like Billy and most of what he stands for, but on this he just baffles me.

I wonder if he would take the risk?