It was like a scene from a Hollywood movie, where the kidnapper walks up from behind, with a gun protruding from his trench coat pocket. "Keep walking, and don't say anything," he warns.
Such was the U.K. government's threat three weeks ago to Ecuador, that British police could invade the Ecuadorian embassy if necessary to arrest WikiLeaks' founder, Julian Assange. But Ecuador's foreign minister didn't keep walking, and said something, to the great embarrassment of the U.K. Foreign Office. The Foreign Office tried to say it wasn't a threat--although it was now available to the world in writing - and then took it back.
But the unprecedented threat to violate the Vienna convention that protects diplomatic missions brought serious criticism from the Union of South American Nations, and then - despite being watered down by Washington - another rebuke from the Organization of American States.
The U.K.'s threat also made it clear that this case was not about questioning Julian Assange regarding a possible criminal case in Sweden. Few could believe that the U.K. government would have resorted to such extreme and illegal measures if this were just a matter of extraditing a foreign citizen to a foreign country where he is not even charged with a crime.
But what about Sweden's role in this sordid affair? Most obviously, Sweden has had the opportunity to interview Assange in the U.K., 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.
The Swedish government also refused to negotiate with Ecuador for an extradition under which Assange would go to Sweden but not be subject to extradition to the U.S. This would be very easy for Sweden (or the U.K., 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.
Contrary to much press commentary, there is no need for conspiracy theories here to draw the logical conclusion. If the Swedish government really wanted to pursue the investigation of sexual offense allegations against Assange, 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.
This also casts serious doubt 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.
This includes the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Claes Borgström, who was reportedly instrumental in getting the third prosecutor (Marianne Ny) to go after Assange. (The previous prosecutor assigned to the case had dropped it because the evidence is so weak). Borgström has been in the media defending the United States and its allies, rather than his clients, asserting that Assange "must know" that the case "has nothing to do with Wikileaks." But Borgström must know that there is a wealth of evidence that the United States is very much interested in punishing Assange, and it keeps growing: on August 18, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Australia's foreign service was aware that U.S. authorities had been pursuing Assange for at least 18 months. And on August 24, Craig Murray, a former U.K. ambassador and 20-year career diplomat there, reported that his colleagues at the U.K. Foreign Office knew better than to make the unprecedented threat of invading Ecuador's embassy, but did so under pressure from Washington.
Like many European countries, including of course the U.K., Sweden's foreign policy is closely allied with that of the U.S. government. This is not the first time that Sweden has collaborated with its Washington allies to violate human rights and international law. In 2001, the Swedish government turned over two Egyptians to the CIA so that they could be sent to Egypt, where they were tortured. Sweden's action brought condemnation from the UN and the government was forced to pay damages to the victims; both were later cleared of any wrongdoing. Polls showed that Swedes considered this crime the worst political scandal in their country in 20 years.
Sweden is a highly developed social democracy that has many guarantees of civil rights and liberties to its citizens. The people of Sweden should not allow their government to continue to disgrace itself in another international governmental crime - this one a pernicious attack on freedom of expression - simply because Washington wants them to do so.
This was published by Al Jazeera English on September 6, 2012.
Many "retired" whistleblowers are talking now, despite the current administrations war and persecution of whistleblowers....they do not want any possibility of any email, memo or order regarding the connection of saudis, cheney, and the bush family to leak out, ever, and it is quite possible that such a file exists in the terra bytes held by wiki leaks.
transparency = equality !
Hearsay from an Assange supporter published on Wikileaks is just the sort of unbiased and transparent information that convinces me.
What I have heard and understand to be true (although the facts in this case are very unclear - ironic being that it is the Wikileaks founder we are seeking facts about) is that the "rape" allegations are more like he had agreed to use a condom in consensual sex, but at the last minute didn't. Creepy and don't date him, OK. Some legal consequences, OK. But classifying it as rape is inflammatory and trying to make him look worse than he is.
I believe he is sincerely trying to do something that will hold governments and powerful people accountable for their own illegal actions. This should be encouraged. It is a separate issue from his dubious moral interactions with women.
Read chapter 2 of my firsthand account as a bank whistleblower uncovering the largest bank fraud in history here: http://thoughtforyourpenny.blogspot.com/2012/03/boy-who-cried-force-placed-insurance_02.html
US foreign policy and its technicians have all the finess of Tony Montana in Scarface. 'SAY HELLO TO THE BAD GUY'.
All this information suggests it is not the country many of us thought it was in fact the opposite.
To me it is the acts of sheer arrogance and underhandedness by the authorities that discredits the Swedish people the most.
Sweden cannot extradite him to the US for what Wikileaks has done, it is expressly forbidden by Articile II of the bilateral extradition treaty Sweden has with the US, because nothing Wikileaks has done is an offence in Sweden, which is a requirement of the treaty.
And, who cares if the UK considers the offences 'prosecutable' when the Swedish government has abandoned any prosecution of the charges. So why the threats from the UK and why the continued demands for extradition from Sweden? Answer those two issues in a logical and coherent manner, supported by documentation, and then perhaps the assertions contained in the argument may have some merit.
2) What threats from the UK? As far as I can see the only thing which is being referred to as a threat is a formal notification from the British government to the Ecuadorian government making them aware that there are local laws which apply to their granting of asylum to Mr Assange, and his attempts to evade the British legal system.
As for the Eygptian man who were extradited, don't you find it a bit odd that Mr Assange felt so safe in Sweden that he deliberately choose it for hosting Wikileaks because of the legal system. Why would he do that if he was concerned that their laws wouldn't/couldn'#t protect him? Why would he site Wikileaks somewhere if felt he might be subject to the same kind of vanishing act as those two Eygptians?
Odd how Swedish law was good enough to protect Mr Assange from extradition when he selected to site Wikileaks there, but it isn't good enough to protect him from exactly the same thing now he's accused of a crime in Sweden. Isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media
And why should the Swedish authorities give in to Assanges demands about where and under what conditions he should be questioned? He is not the one making the rules. And how could Sweden promise that he will not get extradited? There is not, and will never be any special laws just for Assange. How ever: If you read the article that i have linked to, you will see that having him extedited to the US would be easier said then done.
And it would probably be a waste of time to question him in the UK. He left Sweden in a lot of hurry as soon as he heard about the womens allegations, and he refuses to return to clear his name, so is there anything that says that he would go to Sweden if a prosecutor would decide to continue with the case and take him to court?
Here is some interesting reading for everyone:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19426382
I agree that Egyptian incident is disgusting and as a Swedish citizen, it makes me feel ashamed.
Who said that it would be impossible to have Assange extradited to the US? I didn't. But if you read the article that I linked to, you will learn a bit more about what it would take to have him extradited.
About why Swedish law enforcement don't wan't to go to London to speak to him. Well, read my comment again.
And I which everyone could take of their conspiracy goggles of. Assange went to Sweden, because he thought this was a place where he would fell safe, and he would have been, if he hadn't started to think that he was a rock star with groupies that he could treat in what ever way he wanted to. When he made a mistake, and let his little head do the thinking, instead of the one on top of his shoulders, he fled. That is what this is about.
Wikileaks has done a lot of good. But Assange is NOT Wikileaks. He is a man who is afraid to face up to what he may, or may not have done!
You must know one thing and this is that the majority of Swedes are quite sick of the government we have. They're pretty much the same all of them so switching to one from the other really doesn't produce any viable results for a good outcome in any direction, see? So we're quite trapped in this Circus Circle right now.
However, there are alternatives available but the Weisbrot's in our country are doing everything they can to keep the Circus Circle on the route they have established. A Sweden run by Swedes and for Swedes is not in their interest. As a Weisbrot you more than likely already know this. We are working to awake the slumbering Swedes and make them alerted by the fact that viable alternatives are available, ready to put Circus Circle out of action forever.
I bid you good bye.
Faithfully,
Jonathan Rådefalk.