What was missing in "10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange"(The Guardian, Nick Davies, 17 December 2010):
I was surprised to read the article, "10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange" because I hold the Guardian in high esteem and I cannot fathom why such a credible publication would publish a prejudiced and unfair article. I object to the Guardian's decision to publish selective passages from the Swedish police report, whilst omitting exculpatory evidence contained in the document.
Julian Assange has the right to a fair and impartial trial in a court of justice; instead, in denial of due process, he is being subjected to a 'trial by newspapers,' in an effort to discredit him. This tactic is not new. As Justice Felix Frankfurter said in 1961, 'inflammatory' news stories that prejudice justice are 'too often' published. For those that remember Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 to the New York Times, this seems to be a case of history repeating itself. Like Assange, who has been hailed a 'terrorist' by US Attorney General Eric Holder, Ellsberg was subjected to a malicious media campaign, in which he was branded 'the most dangerous man in the world.'
It is deplorable the Swedish police files have been given unlawfully to the Guardian and other newspapers. By whom I wonder? We have the right to know who is behind this obvious effort to conduct a smear campaign. According to Assange's legal team there is a lot of exonerating evidence in the police file, and material which they supplied to the Guardian, including a copy of the chronology of events, and the press statement of the initial chief prosecutor Eva Finne. This important evidence was omitted from the article. The statement by Ms. Finne, "The decision which up to this point has been established is that Assange is not suspected of rape and he is therefore no longer wanted for arrest" is nowhere to be found.
I am aware that Assange's legal team failed to respond to theGuardian on time when invited to publish a response to the article prior to its publication. However, the point here is not about the defense. The issue is the choices theGuardian made when presenting the facts contained in the police dossier, and the overriding duty of any credible news publication to present a fair rendition of events, particularly when due process is at stake.
There is information in the public domain, including Tweets, SMS messages and statements to friends, from the two complainants. Although there are vague references to this correspondence, the content is conspicuously absent from the narrative the Guardian has woven.
If the media insists in engaging in this reprehensible method of publicly trying Julian Assange, the least they could do is publish an accurate account. The Guardian has reversed the presumption of innocence by only publishing allegations against him, and not his account of events or the mitigating evidence in the police dossier. Although the article alludes to his objections to the allegations, his account, contained in the police file, is not directly quoted.
From a molehill, a mighty mountain of innuendos has been made to cast Julian Assange as some kind of rapist. I refuse to be drawn into passing judgment on the case, however, we should all remember, Assange is innocent until proven guilty.
I condemn and abhor rape and as an advocate of women rights, I will denounce any man who forces his sexual attention on women. I have found the sequence of events in the case against Assange, disturbing to say the least. At the end of the day, the issue here is justice and due process for all. Denying justice for men will not achieve justice for women.
Assange has been criticized for not being willing to return to Sweden to prove his innocence. It is hardly surprising he has reservations, given Sweden's human rights record. Anyone acquainted with it will remember the cases of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Alzery, two Egyptian asylum seekers who were, according to Redress, 'removed from Sweden to Egypt by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency in cooperation with the Swedish authorities and outside of any legal process, ' on charges of terrorism in 2001. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen as passive onlookers.
In 2005, in Agiza v. Sweden (Communication No. 233/2003), the UN Committee against Torture found that Sweden had violated the Convention against Torture. The following year, in Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden (Communication No. 1416/2005), the UN Human Rights Committee found Sweden to have violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Alzery was released without charge after two years in prison however, 'he continues to suffer physically and psychologically as a result of his torture and ill-treatment.' Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal. The process was not fair, and there is doubt as to the men's guilt.
Redress has stated:
Mr. Agiza and Mr. Alzery remain at a real risk of torture and ill-treatment as a result of Sweden's violations of the Convention against Torture. These cases epitomise the recent attempts by states to circumvent the absolute principle of non-refoulement enshrined in the CAT in the name of counterterrorism.Given this precedent, one can appreciate why Julian Assange is apprehensive about being extradited to Sweden. In the Today Show on December 21st, Assange revealed that Sweden has requested that if he returns and is arrested, he is to be held incommunicado, and his Swedish lawyer is to be given a gag order.
Having grown up under a dictatorship in Nicaragua, I am very sensitive to any attempts to weaken our democracy. Although I do not agree with everything WikiLeaks has done, I feel compelled to defend freedom of speech, freedom of the press and due process. I was in court last week, not, as has been reported to pledge surety for Assange's bail, but to voice my support for the founder of WikiLeaks, because I suspect that what is on trial here is not Julian Assange's alleged sexual misconduct, but freedom of speech guaranteed in Art 19 of The Universal declaration of Human Rights, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art 10 of The European Convention on Human Rights. This trial has far reaching implications for all of us who believe in the core values of our democratic system. I fear that Mr. Assange is being punished for releasing information, which reveals the misuse of power by the US and other governments. He is on trial for holding governments to account.
It is my hope that justice will be served in the British judicial system. In the meantime, I hope readers will have the insight to suspend judgment until all evidence is available. Julian Assange is innocent until proven guilty.
I am pleased to learn that the Guardian will be publishing an interview with Julian Assange.
Follow Bianca Jagger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BiancaJagger
I fear that Mr. Assange is being punished for releasing information, which reveals the misuse of power by the US and other governments. He is on trial for holding governments to account.
YES, WE PAY THE SALARYS OF OUR TWISTED GOVT OFFICIALS. and....!
THEY ARE BEHOLDING TO US FOR ACCOUNTABLITY.
INSTEAD THEY TREAT "US" LIKE WE ARE DUMBSHITS!
AS IF WE ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM AND THEIR DECEPTIVE DEEDS THEY ARE DOING!
FOLKS IN USA ARE FED UP WITH THE LAST MANY YEARS OF BULLY BUSH, ROTTON RUMSFELD,TRICKY DICKY CHENEY, AND THE PACK OF LIARS AND JOKERS WHO RAN THIS COUNRTY INTO THE TOILET!
THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS AND WE NEED THEM TRIED AS SUCH!!
SOME ONE SOONER OR LATER WOULD OF DONE THIS ANYWAY!! THE LEAKING OF GOVT CABLES.
ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE DID!! I SAY ""CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!"" TO JULIAN ASSANGE FOR DOING THIS!!
AND BIANCA TO MAKE HER PERTENENT POINTS ABOVE!!
IF WE FAIL TO STAND UP TO OUR GOVTS AND MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE THEN WE LOSE OUR FREEDOMS AND LIFE!!
WE CANT AFFORD TO PASS THIS OPPORTUNITY BY AND NEED TO MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO "US" WHO PAY THEIR SALARYS!!
OR..... GET RID OF THEM!! ....ASAP!!
FOR CHEATING AND FAILING US! ALL THESE GOVT JOKERS AND LIARS!
WE ARE THRU!! WITH YOU!! GET OUR COUNTRY OUT OF THE TOILET!!
You describe almost exactly what I feel about this situation, but could have never expressed so well.
It may be the courtship of Government by Corporations, the way government bailed out corporations who damaged the economy, or how laws concerning corporations tend to favor the corporate welfare over the people.
It may be two wars based on lies and deceptions. It maybe the speed with which TWO administrations transfered 3.4 trillion dollars to corporations in the form of debt laid upon our descendants after these corporations had betrayed the companies they worked for and the nation through cheating, conning and swindling trillions from the economy.
It may be that after (instantly passing laws to “save” banks) congress became constipated in every effort to do anything for the people damaged by their corrupt practices.
Maybe we weep because we feel in every bone of our bodies government has lost or forgotten Democracy, ignores the authority of our Constitution and the ungodly mandate of the Supreme Court makes a business into a man.
Or maybe it is one of a multitude of other offences the people are expected to endure quietly, while government ignores their humanity, making secret deals which negatively impact our lives and has upset the balance and caused us (the people) to rejoice at the squirming of politicians and wonder why Interpol is involved in a sexual dispute over a condom that amounts to $714 fine in Sweden with all the bells and whistles of an international manhunt.
This is why many of us worry about the future and applaud Julian.
fanned
WE ARE BEING SCREWED OVER BY OUR ABUSIVE GOVT... ITS THAT SIMPLE!!
The best interview with Assange I've seen=with David Frost
F&F
The US is seeking punitive measures against Assange therefore I would agree, under these conditions, he is indeed innocent until proven guilty.
Thirdly, "rape" allegations, according to what I have read are hyperbolic and an insult to women who have truly experienced "rape". Discrediting people who you want out of the way with charges of sexual misconduct is nothing new.
Eliot Spitzer wasn't the first to go down because of that. The premise was different certainly, but anyone who watches Client 9, the docu on Spitzer, will see parallels and what happens when you piss powerful people off. (Spitzer has long been a vocal opponent of Wall Street machinations...and surprise...he's gone. And please, spare me the "but he went to a hooker" drap, it's lame and hypocritical)
Allegations about sex are difficult to assess, sex crimes are oftentimes like the movie Rashoman, we may never know the full truth, but a gag order? THAT has nothing with a sex crime, that is political.
Thank you
The Corporate media and the Government is trying to manipulate our freedom !!!
We need real Freedom of the Press !!!
The heavily biased reporting of the Guardian is clearly an irrational attempt to smear a (now) public figure for whatever agenda the Guardian has.
It seems everywhere I look people are behaving irrationally about Wikileaks and Jullian Assange. So what the hell is going on? I finally realized we have a full blown 'moral panic' on our hands.
Let's stand back for a moment and forget what Wikileaks is, who Julian Assange is, or what they have done - those things for the moment are distracting details. Let's for the moment stand back and ask "what is happening to our society, our governments, our media, and our citizens, why are they all acting so irrationally, on all sides?"
Some insight can be gained by reading Stanley Cohen's "Folk Devils and Moral Panics."
What ever side of the cause célèbre of secrets you are on, what ever you read or what ever you say, just stand back and put it all in the context of moral panic. Who or what are we to believe when statements are made in this context?
To complain about Sweden's Human Right Record is stretching things a little here. Yes they have done bad things and yes they allowed the CIA or whoever to snatch people, but how often did it happen and in comparison to the rest of the world, this is a relatively rare occurance.
As for rape Mr. Assange needs to return to Sweden and face trial, otherwise he will always be guilty. In Sweden he can get a fair and open trial, and clear his name.
F&F
Besides, it's more than likely that the extradition to Sweden is a ruse.
It is obvious that those who seek to subvert our political system (as well as political systems throughout the world) prefer to operate in secrecy. The information shared by Julian on public figures, elected by the public or appointed to do the work of the public which make their actions a public concern therefore the public has every right to know what they are doing. Secrecy in politics serves only tyrants.
But the right to a fair trial and impartial trial assumes that you are not tainting the evidence and the jury pool with false or selective information through the media or any other source.
The fact that Sweden has in the past operated in conjunction with the CIA in an improper fashion only gives greater support to Julian’s position of not interrupting his activities to dash back into the hands of those it appears seek to stop his activities.